Are you up to date on how Colorado's new Parental Involvement in K-12 Education Act affects the employer/employee relationship? Do you have a clear understanding of the employer liability involved in other parental leave laws? Now is not the time to fall behind on employment law. Register today and let our experienced faculty provide you with all the information you need to stay compliant ...

Know How the ADAAA, Lilly Ledbetter, Changes to the FMLA and I-9 Form Affect Employment Practices

Are you current on the latest labor-related legislative actions? Do you have a firm grasp on how these new laws and amendments affect businesses' employment practices? Inadvertent noncompliance could prove to be costly. Ensure business compliance with this practical legal briefing on the new labor laws affecting employment practices. You'll not only gain a fundamental ov...

Ensure compliance with employment laws!

When used consistently and fairly, employment laws assist in creating and maintaining an environment that promotes cooperation and professionalism. If you're responsible for the company's legal compliance – this is the program for you! Register today!

• Keep everything legal – make sure you're up-to-date on existing laws and familiar with the new ones.
• Handle sensitive issues and ensure the investigations ar...
  
  Update on Labor and Employment Law Developments
  From westlegaledcenter.com
  
  Employment law is an ever-changing source of concern to legal departments. It is critical for all in-house counsel, not just employment law counsel, to stay abreast of the developing case law in this arena. This session will cover recent key decisions on Title VII, ADA, FMLA and other major employment laws that can have important implications for you and your clients. Come and find out what’s new.
  
  Managing a Global Workforce: HR and Employment Law Challenges
  From westlegaledcenter.com
  
  Gone global? More and more companies are stretching their operations across the world; in-house employment lawyers can no longer afford to be experts only in US employment law. Instead, those who work for multinational companies must be able to manage complex multijurisdictional human resources projects, as well as employment issues arising in many countries simultaneously. This panel will address some of the key challenges such as managing global reductions in force, and provide advice on best ...
  
  New Employment Legislation and Regulations Under the Obama Administration
  From westlegaledcenter.com
  
  With control over the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democratic leaders have promised an aggressive agenda of employment law reforms in 2009. This program will provide an in-depth analysis of new employment laws and regulations (enacted, proposed or under development) to which your companies will need to respond. Topics will include pay discrimination reforms, card check legislation, civil rights reforms, FMLA expansion and paid sick leave bills, OSHA proposals, immigr...
  
  Non-Compete Agreements and Trade Secrets: Update
  From westlegaledcenter.com
  
  

  Hear the latest developments in U.S. law on restrictive covenants and non-compete clauses in employment.

  Understand the perspective of employers as well as the employee seeking to move.

  Get tips for drafting enforceable agreements.

  Employers frequently seek to protect their trade secrets by requiring new hires to sign “non-compete” agreements, just in case the new relationship sours and the employee leaves to work for a competitor. The practice that has long been appli...
  

  H1N1 in the Workplace-Frequently Asked Employment Law Questions
  From westlegaledcenter.com
  
  

  The 2009-2010 flu season is well underway, and with H1N1 in the mix, it is poised to be considerably more dangerous than usual. As the flu makes its way into more and more homes and workplaces, employers around the country, and their attorneys, have many questions about state and federal laws that come into play when making personnel or policy decisions in flu-related situations. Join Advanced Employment Law and Litigation: ADA Update; Retaliation, Whistleblower Protection, and Sarbanes-Oxley Developments; U.S. Supreme Court Highlights
  From westlegaledcenter.com
  

  The new Administration in Washington — including a Democratic filibuster-proof Congress and newly appointed members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Labor — has changed the political climate of the country with respect to Federal regulation of the employment relationship. This advanced course is designed to inform you of the most significant recent changes, including:

  • The Americans With Disabilities Act has already been amended to bro...
    

    Advanced Employment Law and Litigation: Ethics; State Law Developments; FMLA; and Damages
    From westlegaledcenter.com

    
    

    The new Administration in Washington — including a Democratic filibuster-proof Congress and newly appointed members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Labor — has changed the political climate of the country with respect to Federal regulation of the employment relationship. This advanced course is designed to inform you of the most significant recent changes, including:

    • The Americans With Disabilities Act has already been amended to bro...
      

      A Labor Attorney's Perspective on the T.O. Arbitration (11-25-2005)
      From blawgsearch.justia

      
      Dilworth Paxson Podcast #1 by Eric Meyer [25 minutes, 12M MP3] Dilworth Paxson Attorney Eric B. Meyer discusses issues related to Labor and Employment law
      

      Federal Judge Certifies Employment Class Action Against Turkey Processor
      From feedproxy.google

      
      LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A class action lawsuit accusing turkey processing company Butterball LLC of violating federal employment law by failing to properly compensate employees for time spent donning and doffing protective gear was certified by an Arkansas federal judge on Dec. 15 (Sheila Helmert, et al. v. Butterball LLC, No. 4:08cv0342, E.D. Ark.; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116460).Full story on lexis.com
      

      Employment Class Against Clothing Retail Chain Reaches Settlement
      From feedproxy.google

      
      SAN FRANCISCO - On Nov. 10, two weeks after a California federal judge denied certification of a class action lawsuit that accused national clothing retail chain Gap Inc. of violating New York employment law, the parties reached a settlement (Dienna Howard v. Gap Inc., No. C 06-6773, N.D. Calif.; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105196).Full story on lexis.com
      

      Negotiating Tips I Learned from My 6-Year Old
      From aremploymentlaw.com

      
      Employment law negotiation skills I learned from my 6-year old.
      

      Employers May Only Have to Pay Proportional Fees If They Lose
      From laboremploymentlawblog.com

      
      

      In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Court held that a court has the discretion to award a plaintiff seeking attorneys’ fees for the underlying litigation only a fair portion of the amount sought.

      In November 1989, Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) hired Plaintiff Robert Chavez as a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department (“Department”). In 1996, he was accused of stealing payroll checks. The Department concluded that Chavez was not responsible for the stolen checks after investigating the issue. A few years later, in 1999, the Department began an investigation of Chavez’s conduct in an incident during which Chavez had responded to a silent alarm at a laundromat. Chavez left work on stress leave a little over a month later and was absent for almost a year before he returned to work. When he returned on March 10, 2000, he was served with a written notice that the Department intended to suspend him for five days for neglect of duty during the laundromat incident. A couple of weeks later, Chavez requested a transfer. One of his supervisors approved his request, but the approval was later rescinded. Nevertheless, in October 2000, Chavez was transferred from the Department’s 77th Street Division to its Southwest Division, where he resumed patrol duties.
      
      In various litigation proceedings beginning in 1998, Chavez sued the City and others, asserting claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); violation of civil rights; nuisance; trespass; inverse condemnation; invasion of privacy; and loss of consortium (as to his wife). He also claimed employment discrimination on the bases of race and perceived mental disability. After a tortured litigation history—including two cases in Los Angeles County Superior Court, one case in federal District Court, and time spent on an appeal to the Ninth Circuit—that spanned five years, Chavez succeeded on only one claim: He was awarded $11,500.00 when a jury found that the temporary rescission of Chavez’s transfer order was in retaliation for his assertion of “his other, ultimately unsuccessful FEHA claims. All of the other claims were dismissed or found to be lacking in merit.” In litigating all of the claims, Chavez’s lawyers calculated that they had provided services for Chavez worth $870,935.50.
      
      Under California law, a party who wins a statutory discrimination or retaliation case (the “prevailing” party) can make the other party pay for some of its litigation costs, which can include attorneys’ fees. However, for cases that plaintiffs could have reasonably classified as “limited civil actions”—that is, actions where the plaintiff may be awarded under $25,000.00—but did not, courts have the discretion to deny an award of costs to the prevailing plaintiff. Limited civil actions, in accordance with the small dollar amounts at stake, apply more limited procedures than other actions and are thus more cost-effective for the parties. By allowing courts to deny attorneys’ fees to a wrongly classified action even where the plaintiff prevails, the law encourages plaintiffs to correctly classify their lawsuits at the beginning of a case.
      
      Chavez’s case is a perfect example of this situation. Although Chavez was awarded only $11,500.00 in damages—well within the “limited civil action” rubric—Chavez’s lawyers had not classified his lawsuits as “limited.” With the full panoply of litigation procedures available to them, they went all out in pursuing Chavez’s claims and in so doing incurred fees allegedly worth over 75 times ($870,935.50) what the lawsuit was ultimately worth ($11,500.00). They sought to recover all of these fees from the City, claiming that Chavez was entitled to them as the prevailing party.
      
      The Supreme Court rejected these claims. It held that the rule regarding the court’s discretion in awarding fees applied to FEHA cases and, “in light of plaintiff’s minimal success and grossly inflated attorney fee request [in this particular case], the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees.” It further elaborated, “If a plaintiff has prevailed on some claims but not others, fees are not awarded for time spent litigating claims unrelated to the successful claims, and the trial court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained.” In other words, courts have the power to rule that a current or former employee cannot pursue exaggerated and overreaching FEHA lawsuits and then make the employer pay for all of the costs the employee racked up just because there was merit to a relatively small number of the claims. This ruling does not relieve employers of liability for their mistakes, but it encourages courts to make employers pay no more than an amount that is commensurate with those mistakes and discourages plaintiff's attorneys from prolonging cases simply to inflate their request for fees.

      
      

      Employers May Only Have to Pay Proportional Fees If They Lose
      From www.laboremploymentlawblog

      
      

      In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Court held that a court has the discretion to award a plaintiff seeking attorneys’ fees for the underlying litigation only a fair portion of the amount sought.

      In November 1989, Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) hired Plaintiff Robert Chavez as a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department (“Department”). In 1996, he was accused of stealing payroll checks. The Department concluded that Chavez was not responsible for the stolen checks after investigating the issue. A few years later, in 1999, the Department began an investigation of Chavez’s conduct in an incident during which Chavez had responded to a silent alarm at a laundromat. Chavez left work on stress leave a little over a month later and was absent for almost a year before he returned to work. When he returned on March 10, 2000, he was served with a written notice that the Department intended to suspend him for five days for neglect of duty during the laundromat incident. A couple of weeks later, Chavez requested a transfer. One of his supervisors approved his request, but the approval was later rescinded. Nevertheless, in October 2000, Chavez was transferred from the Department’s 77th Street Division to its Southwest Division, where he resumed patrol duties.
      
      In various litigation proceedings beginning in 1998, Chavez sued the City and others, asserting claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); violation of civil rights; nuisance; trespass; inverse condemnation; invasion of privacy; and loss of consortium (as to his wife). He also claimed employment discrimination on the bases of race and perceived mental disability. After a tortured litigation history—including two cases in Los Angeles County Superior Court, one case in federal District Court, and time spent on an appeal to the Ninth Circuit—that spanned five years, Chavez succeeded on only one claim: He was awarded $11,500.00 when a jury found that the temporary rescission of Chavez’s transfer order was in retaliation for his assertion of “his other, ultimately unsuccessful FEHA claims. All of the other claims were dismissed or found to be lacking in merit.” In litigating all of the claims, Chavez’s lawyers calculated that they had provided services for Chavez worth $870,935.50.
      
      Under California law, a party who wins a statutory discrimination or retaliation case (the “prevailing” party) can make the other party pay for some of its litigation costs, which can include attorneys’ fees. However, for cases that plaintiffs could have reasonably classified as “limited civil actions”—that is, actions where the plaintiff may be awarded under $25,000.00—but did not, courts have the discretion to deny an award of costs to the prevailing plaintiff. Limited civil actions, in accordance with the small dollar amounts at stake, apply more limited procedures than other actions and are thus more cost-effective for the parties. By allowing courts to deny attorneys’ fees to a wrongly classified action even where the plaintiff prevails, the law encourages plaintiffs to correctly classify their lawsuits at the beginning of a case.
      
      Chavez’s case is a perfect example of this situation. Although Chavez was awarded only $11,500.00 in damages—well within the “limited civil action” rubric—Chavez’s lawyers had not classified his lawsuits as “limited.” With the full panoply of litigation procedures available to them, they went all out in pursuing Chavez’s claims and in so doing incurred fees allegedly worth over 75 times ($870,935.50) what the lawsuit was ultimately worth ($11,500.00). They sought to recover all of these fees from the City, claiming that Chavez was entitled to them as the prevailing party.
      
      The Supreme Court rejected these claims. It held that the rule regarding the court’s discretion in awarding fees applied to FEHA cases and, “in light of plaintiff’s minimal success and grossly inflated attorney fee request [in this particular case], the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees.” It further elaborated, “If a plaintiff has prevailed on some claims but not others, fees are not awarded for time spent litigating claims unrelated to the successful claims, and the trial court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained.” In other words, courts have the power to rule that a current or former employee cannot pursue exaggerated and overreaching FEHA lawsuits and then make the employer pay for all of the costs the employee racked up just because there was merit to a relatively small number of the claims. This ruling does not relieve employers of liability for their mistakes, but it encourages courts to make employers pay no more than an amount that is commensurate with those mistakes and discourages plaintiff's attorneys from prolonging cases simply to inflate their request for fees.

      
      

      Brian Chabarek Announced as the New Vice Chair of the Employment Law Committee of the NJDA
      From hoaglandlongo.com