Public Employees and Government Code Section 21198

Public Employees and Government Code Section 21198

The Court of Appeal (Fourth District) has held that where an employee has been involuntarily terminated and subsequently reinstated pursuant to an administrative or judicial proceeding, Government Code § 21198 prevents the California Public Employees' Retirement System from reinstating the employee to a different classification that has no connection to the underlying dispute. (See, Byrd v. State Personnel Board - June 26, 2019, Fourth District, Div. One Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3

California program to track state worker harassment is a year behind schedule

California program to track state worker harassment is a year behind schedule

A $1.5 million project to start tracking sexual harassment and discrimination in California state government is scheduled to be fully functional by January 2020 — a full year later than originally planned. Former Gov. Jerry Brown proposed the project as a first step to start addressing allegations of gender-based harassment in state government that were coming out amid the #MeToo movement. The state didn’t have a way to track complaints across its 150 departments, so it could

The Power of Remittitur - Jury Award in FEHA Action Reduced by $5 Million

The Power of Remittitur - Jury Award in FEHA Action Reduced by $5 Million

The Court of Appeals for the Second District held this week that a trial court’s use of its power of remittitur to reduce excessive damages was not an abuse of discretion where the court found aspects of the jury’s award for past noneconomic damages against a public employer to be improperly punitive. (see, Pearl v. City of Los Angeles - filed June 18, 2019, Second District, Div. Seven - 2019 S.O.S. 2876.) In Pearl v. City of Los Angeles, a jury awarded James Pearl $17,394,97

A class of plaintiffs must show how their employer's no-premium-wages policy harmed the class m

A class of plaintiffs must show how their employer's no-premium-wages policy harmed the class m

The Court of Appeal for the Second District has ruled that while a policy or practice of failing to pay premium wages after meal period violations is an unfair business practice within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Law, a class of plaintiffs must still show the no-premium-wages policy harmed the class members in a manner entitling them restitution. The Court further ruled that a plaintiff cannot have his/her untimely-filed Private Attorneys General Act claim relate-ba

Employer Found In Violation of Strict OSHA Standard

Employer Found In Violation of Strict OSHA Standard

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that when determining whether an employer has violated a specific Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") safety standard, the Court will look at the substantial evidence. (Bergelectric Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, 2019 S.O.S. 17-72852, filed June 6, 2019.) In Bergelectric, the Court determined that the contractor was not performing "roofing work" when it installed solar panels on a roof. Substantial ev

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that the EEOC Filing Requirement is Procedural and Isn't a Jurisdiction

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that the EEOC Filing Requirement is Procedural and Isn't a Jurisdiction

In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the charge-filing precondition to suit set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional requirement. (See, Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U. S. ____ (2019).) In Davis, the employer (Fort Bend) -- years into the litigation -- sought dismissal due to the lack of federal jurisdiction because claimant had not stated a timely claim for religious discrimination in the EEOC charge. Rejecting t

Featured Posts

One Year Anniversary: Felahy Employment Lawyers Secure $5,000,000.00 Class Action Settlement

One Year Anniversary: Felahy Employment Lawyers Secure $5,000,000.00 Class Action Settlement

Recent Posts

Follow Us

Archive

Search By Tags

No tags yet.