HOME SEARCH RESOURCES CONTACT
 
Newsletters
 
 
CURRENT SEARCH
California Employment Law Notes
   

All Issues:
 
2008
November 2008
September 2008
July 2008
May 2008
March 2008
January 2008
January 2008
 
2007
November 2007
September 2007
July 2007
May 2007
March 2007
January 2007
 
2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
April 2006
January 2006
 
2005
December 2005
October 2005
July 2005
May 2005
March 2005
January 2005
 
2004
November 2004
September 2004
July 2004
May 2004
March 2004
January 2004
 
2003
November 2003
October 2003
August 2003
June 2003
April 2003
February 2003
 
2002
December 2002
November 2002
September 2002
July 2002
July 2004
Download PDF Newsletter (113.71 K)
 
In This Issue:
 

Court Certifies Class Action Consisting Of 1.5 Million Female Wal-Mart Employees

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

 
 

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Who Failed To Assert Unfair Competition Claim May Have Committed Malpractice

Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff

 
 

Statute Permitting Retiring Educators To Work Part Time Does Not Support Public Policy Claim

Sinatra v. Chico Unified School Dist.

 
 
 

Court Upholds Berkeley’s Living Wage Ordinance

RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley

 
 
 

Non-Union Employees No Longer Entitled To Have Representative Present During Investigatory Interviews

IBM Corp.

 
 

Affirmative Defense May Be Available To Employer That Constructively Terminated Sexual Harassment Victim

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders

 
 

Employer Improperly Failed To Pay Employees For Time Spent “Donning and Doffing” Uniforms

Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp.

 
 

Security Service Is Not Liable For Assault Allegedly Committed By Unsupervised Employee

Plancarte v. Guardsmark

 
 

ERISA Plan Administrator Had Discretion To Deny Disability Benefits To Employee With Fibromyalgia

Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

 
 

Employees’ Fraud Claims Were Properly Dismissed

Le Francois v. Goel

 
 

Ski Resort Employee May Have Assumed The Risk Of Injury

Vine v. Bear Valley Ski Co.

 
 

Settlement Of Workers’ Compensation Claim Did Not Bar Civil Lawsuit For Harassment And Discrimination

Mitchell v. The Union Central Life Ins. Co.

 
 
CEO Could Proceed With Malicious Prosecution Action Against Former Employee’s Attorneys

Siebel v. Mittlesteadt
 
 
Action Filed Against Former Employer’s Attorneys Was Subject To Anti-SLAPP Statute

Soukup v. Stock
 
 
Company’s Proposed Payments To Corporate Officials Were Not Subject To Retention Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act

SEC v. Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l
 
 
Class Suitability Issues Should Not Have Been Determined At The Pleading Stage

Prince v. CLS Transp., Inc.
 
 

Employee Was Not Protected Against Termination For Speech-Related Activities

Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp.

 
 
 

 
   
  ^top