The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
Employment Law
Employees Cannot Be Required to Waive Labor Commissioner Hearing
October 13, 2011 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
The California Supreme Court has ruled employers may not require an employee to waive the right to a Labor Commissioner hearing in favor of binding arbitration. (Sonic- Calabasas v. Moreno, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659.) Under… Read More
Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance Upheld
When a new owner takes over a business, all too often the current employees are the first things to go. In an effort to curb this longstanding tradition in the retail grocery industry, the City… Read More
Labor Code Applies to Nonresidents Working in State for Cal. Employers
The California Supreme Court has issued a decision clarifying the application of California’s wage and hour laws to out-of-state employees working in California. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, the Court addressed… Read More
Non-Decision-Making Supervisor’s Animus Sufficient to Prove Employer’s Discharge Decision is Discriminatory
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision issued last March, has confirmed that employees may bring successful discrimination claims in federal court based on a “cat’s paw” theory—that is, based on the discriminatory animus of… Read More
AB 569 Gives New Industries Ability to Bargain Meal-Break Rules
January 13, 2011 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Labor Code Section 512 and the Wage Orders generally prohibit employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without providing a meal period of at least 30 minutes, require second meal periods after… Read More
Cal DLSE Eases Standard for Exempting “Interns” From Wage Protections
The California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) has issued a new opinion letter defining when interns are exempt from the wage protections of the California Labor Code. Before the issuance of this new… Read More
California Supreme Court Narrows Application of Kin-Care
In McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group (2010) 48 Cal.4th 104, the California Supreme Court limited the scope of California’s Kin- Care law. California Labor Code 233, the “Kin-Care” statute, does not compel employers to provide… Read More
Leave for Organ & Bone Marrow Donation
January 12, 2011 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Existing law requires that state employees who have exhausted all available sick leave be permitted to take a leave of absence with pay for up to 30 days for the purpose of organ donation, and… Read More
New Bill Clarifies POBAR’s One-Year Notice Rule
AB 955, which became effective January 1, 2010, abrogates an anti-worker decision issued by the California Supreme Court, and requires that a public agency complete its investigation of a public safety officer and notify the… Read More
Title VII Anti-Retaliation Protection Extended
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has ruled that the reach of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision extends beyond the employee who actually files a discrimination charge. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP… Read More
Employees Cannot Be Required to Waive Labor Commissioner Hearing
October 13, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
The California Supreme Court has ruled employers may not require an employee to waive the right to a Labor Commissioner hearing in favor of binding arbitration. (Sonic- Calabasas v. Moreno, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659.) Under… Read More
Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance Upheld
When a new owner takes over a business, all too often the current employees are the first things to go. In an effort to curb this longstanding tradition in the retail grocery industry, the City… Read More
Labor Code Applies to Nonresidents Working in State for Cal. Employers
The California Supreme Court has issued a decision clarifying the application of California’s wage and hour laws to out-of-state employees working in California. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, the Court addressed… Read More
Non-Decision-Making Supervisor’s Animus Sufficient to Prove Employer’s Discharge Decision is Discriminatory
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision issued last March, has confirmed that employees may bring successful discrimination claims in federal court based on a “cat’s paw” theory—that is, based on the discriminatory animus of… Read More
AB 569 Gives New Industries Ability to Bargain Meal-Break Rules
January 13, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Labor Code Section 512 and the Wage Orders generally prohibit employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without providing a meal period of at least 30 minutes, require second meal periods after… Read More
Cal DLSE Eases Standard for Exempting “Interns” From Wage Protections
The California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) has issued a new opinion letter defining when interns are exempt from the wage protections of the California Labor Code. Before the issuance of this new… Read More
California Supreme Court Narrows Application of Kin-Care
In McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group (2010) 48 Cal.4th 104, the California Supreme Court limited the scope of California’s Kin- Care law. California Labor Code 233, the “Kin-Care” statute, does not compel employers to provide… Read More
Leave for Organ & Bone Marrow Donation
January 12, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Existing law requires that state employees who have exhausted all available sick leave be permitted to take a leave of absence with pay for up to 30 days for the purpose of organ donation, and… Read More
New Bill Clarifies POBAR’s One-Year Notice Rule
AB 955, which became effective January 1, 2010, abrogates an anti-worker decision issued by the California Supreme Court, and requires that a public agency complete its investigation of a public safety officer and notify the… Read More
Title VII Anti-Retaliation Protection Extended
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has ruled that the reach of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision extends beyond the employee who actually files a discrimination charge. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP… Read More
