Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco

An unlawful employment practice occurred each time a worker received an allegedly discriminatory disability retirement check, such that a new limitations period applies to each allegedly discriminatory check. A worker’s putative class claims are timely if she alleges unlawful acts occurring during the limitations period even if those acts arise from a systematic policy of discrimination that came into existence before then.

Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco - filed Oct. 31, 2019, First District, Div. Four

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3392

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

NLRB Announces Partnership with Melwood to Provide Training Opportunities for those with Differing Abilities

WASHINGTON, DC, October 31, 2019—The National Labor Relations Board announced today that it is partnering with the nonprofit organization Melwood to provide on-the-job training and federal office work experience for persons of differing abilities.

As one of the area’s leading nonprofit employers and advocates in the DC region, Melwood provides job training, employment, and recreational services to thousands of people of differing abilities each year. Melwood proudly supports and facilitates the employment goals of its participants who want to work in either the public or private sector through customized training and support partnership programs, such as the program being announced today. The NLRB supports equal access to full employment, including for persons of differing abilities and persons with targeted disabilities, as specified under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We look forward to our partnership with Melwood. As we continue to create a more inclusive workforce, we welcome participants in the program to the Agency.” said NLRB Chairman John Ring.

NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb stated, “The agency looks forward to welcoming these individuals and I know they will gain valuable experience working alongside the staff here at the NLRB.”

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers

The National Labor Relations Board’s order to a union to cease urging certain persons to engage in a strike or refuse to work did not violate the First Amendment where the order involved communications addressed to neutral employees within the tightly regulated contours of labor negotiations.

National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers - filed Oct. 28, 2019

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-73210

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

McCormick v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System

Employees are eligible for a disability retirement under the California Public Employees’ Retirement System pursuant to Government Code §21156 when, due to a disability, they can no longer perform their usual duties at the only location where their employer will allow them to work, even if they might be able to perform those duties at a theoretical different location.

McCormick v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System - filed Oct. 25, 2019, First District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3265

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing Inc.

When a temporary staffing service employee asserts a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against a contracting employer, the determination of whether the contracting employer qualifies as the employer of the staffing service employee does not depend on whether the contracting employer exerted more control over the employee than the staffing service company; the focus is on the contracting employer individually.

Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. - filed Oct. 17, 2019, Fourth District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3185

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel

A worker’s regular rate of compensation for calculating meal or rest break premium payments is not the same thing as her regular rate of pay for calculating overtime premium payments. An employer’s facially neutral policy for rounding employee work time does not systematically undercompensate its employees.

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel - filed Oct. 9, 2019, Second District, Div. Three

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3095

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises

The ABC test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court addresses claims that workers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than covered employees, and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability; the governing standard for determining the existence of a joint employment relationship remains Martinez v. Combs. A corporation was not the joint employer of a service station worker, even though his employer was contractually obligated to perform certain tasks for the corporation, since the employer alone dictated how those tasks would be performed, the corporation had no power to fire the worker, and did not have the ability to hinder his work.

Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises - filed Oct. 8, 2019, First District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3053

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com