Search

Search form

Jonathan A. SiegelBlog Posts

See all

  • Certain Communications with Represented Parties Allowed

    The California Court of Appeal has held in a case under the California False Claims Act (FCA) that California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, generally prohibiting an attorney, directly or indirectly, from communicating with a represented party, including the party’s employees, did not apply to prohibit communications between two qui tam plaintiffs and the defendant-employer’s current … Continue reading Certain Communications with Represented Parties Allowed
    April 5, 2013
  • Discrimination as a Substantial Motivating Factor in Mixed Motive Cases

    A positive development for employers. To establish liability in “mixed motive” employment discrimination cases under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the employee must show that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision, the California Supreme Court ruled. Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004 (Cal. Feb. 7, … Continue reading Discrimination as a Substantial Motivating Factor in Mixed Motive Cases
    February 22, 2013
  • Support Dogs and Other Animals in the Workplace

    California employers should be prepared to welcome support dogs and other animals into the workplace as a reasonable accommodation for disabled workers requiring support under new disability regulations issued by the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission. The new regulations significantly expand protections for disabled workers and outline new requirements regarding reasonable accommodations, the interactive … Continue reading Support Dogs and Other Animals in the Workplace
    February 22, 2013
  • California Court Of Appeal Rules Refusal To Cooperate With Company Investigation or Giving False Information To Company Investigator Is Not Protected By FEHA

     A California court of appeal has recently ruled that an employee is not protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for refusing to participate in or cooperate with a Company investigation into misconduct. McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., (Cal Ct. App. No. H036597, 1/24/2013). In McGrory, California’s Sixth Appellate District rejected an … Continue reading California Court Of Appeal Rules Refusal To Cooperate With Company Investigation or Giving False Information To Company Investigator Is Not Protected By FEHA
    January 28, 2013
  • California Upholds Labor Anti-Injunction Statutes

    The California Supreme Court has ruled that unions may continue to engage in “peaceful” picketing and other otherwise lawful union activities on an employer’s private property during a labor dispute and that two California anti-injunction statutes regarding labor activities do not run afoul of the First or Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Ralphs Grocery … Continue reading California Upholds Labor Anti-Injunction Statutes
    January 14, 2013
  • Enforcement of California Website Online Privacy Law Begins

    Our colleague at the Workplace Privacy Blog has reported that the California Attorney General has started to enforce the state’s Online Privacy Protection Act.  Regardless whether a company is located in California, the Act requires any company that maintains a website that collects personal information about Californians to maintain a privacy policy on the site. … Continue reading Enforcement of California Website Online Privacy Law Begins
    November 5, 2012
  • California Supreme Court to Review whether Employer’s Insurance Applied to Accident Caused by Employee Driving his Car while Working

      In a case that could impact employers whose employees use their own vehicles for work, the California Supreme Court granted review to address whether an employer’s insurance policy covered a deadly automobile accident caused by an employee driving his own car. American States Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, No. S205073 (Cal. Oct. 24, 2012). Although this case … Continue reading California Supreme Court to Review whether Employer’s Insurance Applied to Accident Caused by Employee Driving his Car while Working
    October 30, 2012
  • A California Court of Appeal Permits Class Action Regarding Independent Contractor Status But Affirms Denial of Class Certification For Unpaid Overtime and Meal and Rest Period Violations

      A new case presents a mixed bag of results for California employers. As a general matter, California employers should be careful when classifying individuals as independent contractors, rather than employees. Reversing the denial of class certification in an action for various Labor Code violations, a California Court of Appeal held that whether newspaper delivery … Continue reading A California Court of Appeal Permits Class Action Regarding Independent Contractor Status But Affirms Denial of Class Certification For Unpaid Overtime and Meal and Rest Period Violations
    October 23, 2012
  • Court of Appeal Rules Independent Contractor Status Beyond the Scope of Poorly Drafted Arbitration Agreement

      Employers must carefully draft arbitration agreements and ensure the agreements are regularly updated for compliance with state and federal law. A California Court of Appeal held that owner-operator truck drivers were not required to arbitrate whether they were misclassified as independent contractors where the parties’ arbitration agreements applied to any dispute that arose “with … Continue reading Court of Appeal Rules Independent Contractor Status Beyond the Scope of Poorly Drafted Arbitration Agreement
    October 22, 2012
  • Employee Who Did Not Sign Arbitration Agreement is Not Required to Arbitrate Claims

      Another arbitration case which is unfavorable to employers. A California Court of Appeal ruled that a human resources director who never signed the employer’s arbitration agreement, concealed that fact from her employer, and quit her job before doing so, could not be required to arbitrate her employment claims. Gorlach v. The Sports Club, No. B 233672 … Continue reading Employee Who Did Not Sign Arbitration Agreement is Not Required to Arbitrate Claims
    October 19, 2012

Pages