In 1996, the Third District Court of Appeal in Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court held that statements given by witnesses to an attorney working on a case were not discoverable by the other parties in litigation. The Appellate Court held that the work-product privilege barred
AT&T Mobility, LLC. v. Concepcion: U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Companies To Take Advantages Of Consumers
Recently, in AT&T Mobility, LLC. v. Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a class action waiver ban was unenforceable under California law. This ruling has significant consequences for many consumers, as well as
Does California Law Require That Meal Breaks Must Be Provided Or That They Must Be Taken?
In Brinker v. Superior Court, the issue was whether California law required employers to provide the opportunity for meal breaks or to ensure the breaks were taken. In July 2008, the Court of Appeal held that the employer was only required to make the breaks available, and did not have to ensure
Ninth Circuit Holds That An Employer Is Not Required to Provide Indefinite Leave Of Absence
In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Lucent Technologies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that under California law, an employer was not required to provide an indefinite leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s disability. Plaintiff Steven Carauddo was
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That States May Require Employers To Use The Federal E-Verify System
On May 26, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Arizona in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The Supreme Court held that the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) was a valid and enforceable law. The LAWA requires all employers doing business in Arizona to use the use the federal
Employer Cannot Use An Abbreviation Of Its DBA On A Wage Statement
In Noori v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Solutions, the Court stated that an employee asserted a viable claim for a violation of Labor Code §226(a)(8) where his wage statements from his employer bore only an abbreviation of a fictitious business name as opposed to his employer’s name. The Court