07.30.19
Halfway through 2019, it’s time to recap the five biggest employment law stories to date based on the top trafficked links to Manatt’s Employment Law newsletter.
Interpreting California Labor Code Section 2802, an appellate panel in the state ruled that an employer was not required to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes.
Exit inspections conducted as retail employees of Nike leave the store may need to be compensated, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined in a class action, applying the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corp.
In the latest arbitration battle involving Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims, a California federal court denied an employer’s motion to compel despite recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
06.27.19
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been busy the past few weeks.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to permit an employer to use the plaintiff’s alleged failure to ...
States have recently enacted new employment-related laws on issues ranging from flexible leave to marijuana testing.
An employee’s error with regard to the name of his employer when he filed a charge of discrimination was not fatal to his age discrimination claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held.
05.31.19
The reverberations of the California Supreme Court’s April 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court continue for employers in the state.
By continuing to work for a company, the plaintiff impliedly accepted an arbitration agreement, a California appellate panel has ruled, reversing the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.