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
Probationary Teacher’s Discriminatory Non-reelection Not Subject To Arbitration
July 12, 2009 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
The Public Employment Relations Board may order a school district to rehire a second-year, probationary teacher who was not rehired because of union activities, but an arbitrator may not, according to the court of appeal… Read More
Tougher Standards for Age Discrimination Complaints
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision will make it significantly harder for employees to win age discrimination suits. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009), the Supreme Court held that employees who accuse employers… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Rules CBA Can Require Employees to Arbitrate Statutory Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court in a decision issued this spring has decided that when a collective bargaining agreement, Requires statutory discrimination claims to be resolved under the contract’s grievance procedure, and allows an individual covered… Read More
Charter County Employees Not Covered by Meal and Rest Period Rules
January 13, 2009 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
California’s First Appellate District ruled that meal and rest break claims under Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7 cannot be asserted against a charter county. Curcini v. County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 629…. Read More
Peace Officer Discipline Notice Need Not Identify Specific Discipline Proposed
The California Supreme Court ruled that the notice of proposed disciplinary action required by the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (POBR) need not identify the specific discipline proposed. Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43… Read More
Courts Deal Blow to Meal and Rest Break Rules
California’s meal and rest break laws have been the topic of several far-reaching decisions that have appropriately received considerable attention in the past year. Beginning with the Fourth Appellate District’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp…. Read More
Employees May Pursue Internal Appeals Without Jeopardizing Right to Pursue State Discrimination Complaints
Two recent California court decisions have clarified the rules for employees filing discrimination complaints when their employer has an internal appeal procedure available. In Ortega v. Contra Costa Community College (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1073, the… Read More
Medical Prescription Provides No Job Protection for Marijuana Use
California workers who are medical marijuana users are subject to termination for their marijuana use the California Supreme Court has decided. Ross v. Raging- Wire, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920.The Court rejected the argument that… Read More
Court Confirms Broad Scope of California Ban on Non-Competes
The California Supreme Court has issued a decision giving an extremely broad sweep to California’s ban on noncompete clauses. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937. Edwards was subject to a noncompetition agreement… Read More
Greater Burden on Plaintiffs in Reasonable Accommodation Cases
The California Supreme Court has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in Disability Discrimination cases under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In Green v. State of California, (2007) 42 Cal…. Read More
Probationary Teacher’s Discriminatory Non-reelection Not Subject To Arbitration
July 12, 2009 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
The Public Employment Relations Board may order a school district to rehire a second-year, probationary teacher who was not rehired because of union activities, but an arbitrator may not, according to the court of appeal… Read More
Tougher Standards for Age Discrimination Complaints
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision will make it significantly harder for employees to win age discrimination suits. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009), the Supreme Court held that employees who accuse employers… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Rules CBA Can Require Employees to Arbitrate Statutory Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court in a decision issued this spring has decided that when a collective bargaining agreement, Requires statutory discrimination claims to be resolved under the contract’s grievance procedure, and allows an individual covered… Read More
Charter County Employees Not Covered by Meal and Rest Period Rules
January 13, 2009 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
California’s First Appellate District ruled that meal and rest break claims under Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7 cannot be asserted against a charter county. Curcini v. County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 629…. Read More
Peace Officer Discipline Notice Need Not Identify Specific Discipline Proposed
The California Supreme Court ruled that the notice of proposed disciplinary action required by the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (POBR) need not identify the specific discipline proposed. Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43… Read More
Courts Deal Blow to Meal and Rest Break Rules
California’s meal and rest break laws have been the topic of several far-reaching decisions that have appropriately received considerable attention in the past year. Beginning with the Fourth Appellate District’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp…. Read More
Employees May Pursue Internal Appeals Without Jeopardizing Right to Pursue State Discrimination Complaints
Two recent California court decisions have clarified the rules for employees filing discrimination complaints when their employer has an internal appeal procedure available. In Ortega v. Contra Costa Community College (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1073, the… Read More
Medical Prescription Provides No Job Protection for Marijuana Use
California workers who are medical marijuana users are subject to termination for their marijuana use the California Supreme Court has decided. Ross v. Raging- Wire, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920.The Court rejected the argument that… Read More
Court Confirms Broad Scope of California Ban on Non-Competes
The California Supreme Court has issued a decision giving an extremely broad sweep to California’s ban on noncompete clauses. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937. Edwards was subject to a noncompetition agreement… Read More
Greater Burden on Plaintiffs in Reasonable Accommodation Cases
The California Supreme Court has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in Disability Discrimination cases under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In Green v. State of California, (2007) 42 Cal…. Read More
