Search

Sexual Harassment & Retaliation/anti-SLAPP

Nam v. Regents of UC The California anti-SLAPP statute was intended to counter the “disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).) It has been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the disease—SLAPP motions are now just the latest form of abusive litigation.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.) (Navellier).) And the disease would become fatal for most harassment, discrimination, and retaliation actions against public employers if we were to accept the Regents of the University of Californi

Arbitration: Who Decides?

Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. Plaintiff Timothy Sandquist and the various defendants here are parties to an arbitration agreement. A salient question is whether that agreement permits or prohibits arbitration on a classwide basis. Here we must answer a question one step removed—who decides whether the agreement permits or prohibits classwide arbitration, a court or the arbitrator? The question has divided the many state and federal courts to consider it. We conclude no universal rule allocates this decision in all cases to either arbitrators or courts. Rather, who decides is in the first instance a matter of agreement, with the parties’ agreement subject to interpretation under stat

New Law: AB 2535 - Itemized wage statements

Existing law requires an employer to provide his or her employee an accurate itemized statement in writing containing specified information, either semimonthly or at the time the employer pays the employee his or her wages. That specified information includes showing total hours worked by the employee, unless the employee’s compensation is solely based on a salary and the employee is exempt from payment of overtime under a specified statute or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. This bill would additionally exempt from that requirement for information on total work hours an employee exempt from payment of minimum wage and overtime under specified statutes or any applic

Defendants waived their right to arbitration

Whether defendants waived their right to arbitration by their litigation conduct was a question of arbitrability that was presumptively for the court, rather than an arbitrator, to decide. Arbitration clause reading "[a]ll determinations as to the scope, enforceability and effect of this arbitration agreement shall be decided by the arbitrator, and not by a court" was insufficiently specific to overcome the presumption. Defendants waived their right to arbitration because they engaged in acts inconsistent with this right, including motion practice and discovery over a 17-month period, and the plaintiffs were prejudiced. Click Here to read the entire case: Martin v. Yasuda

Employee Sues Union

Employee’s action against union--which allegedly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to file and process her grievances, siding with management, and discriminating and retaliating against her because of her disabilities--was not barred by prior ruling that union did not breach its duty of fair representation, because breach of such duty is not an element of an ADA claim against a union. Red the case here: Garity v. APWU National Labor Organization