Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC

Failing to hire a prospective employee based on race violates public policy, but the employer will not have committed a tort against the prospective employee because it owed no duty to that person; a Tameny action for wrongful discharge can only be asserted against an employer.

Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC - filed Sept. 24, 2019, Third District

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2792

For more information, go to:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Gerawan Farming v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Garcia)

An employee has no right of access under the federal and state Constitutions to on-the-record sessions of the mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings between his employer and labor union.

Gerawan Farming v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Garcia) - filed Sept. 24, 2019, Fifth District

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2778

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International Inc.

Under Massachusetts law, the mere alignment of interests is insufficient to support preclusive effect against a nonparty; the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case do not bar a group of plaintiffs from litigating whether they qualified as employees of a company when they had been severed from a prior case and the plaintiff in that case had no legal relationship to the group plaintiffs. The retroactive application of the Dynamex employment test does not violate due process.

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International Inc. - filed Sept. 24, 2019

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-16096

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Southern California Pizza Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London

An employment practices liability insurance policy exclusion relating to wage and hour or overtime law(s) concerns laws regarding duration worked and/or remuneration received in exchange for work.

Southern California Pizza Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London - filed Aug. 27, 2019, publication ordered Sept. 20, 2019, Fourth District, Div. Three

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2715

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

NLRB Proposes Rulemaking Concerning Students

WASHINGTON, DC—The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on September 23, 2019, proposing a rule regarding students. Addressing a recurring question regarding the definition of “employee” under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the proposed rule would exempt from the NLRB’s jurisdiction undergraduate and graduate students who perform services for financial compensation in connection with their studies.

Through issuance of the NPRM, the Board seeks public comment on its proposed view that students who perform services – including teaching and/or research – for compensation at a private college or university in connection with their studies are not “employees” under the NLRA. The basis for this proposed rule is the Board’s preliminary position, subject to revision in light of public comment, that the relationship these students have with their school is predominately educational rather than economic.

In announcing the proposed rule, NLRB Chairman John F. Ring stated: “In the past 19 years, the Board has changed its stance on this issue three times. This rulemaking is intended to obtain maximum input on this issue from the public, and then to bring stability to this important area of federal labor law.” Chairman Ring was joined by Board Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel in issuing the proposed rulemaking. Board Member Lauren McFerran dissented.

The NPRM, including majority and dissenting views as well as relevant statistical appendices cited therein, can be accessed on the Board’s public website at https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/national-labor-relations-board-rulemaking/student-assistants-rule.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Alaama v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, Inc.

Business and Professions Code section 809.1 requires a hospital peer review board to give a physician notice and the right to request a hearing when the hospital revokes or terminates the physician’s membership, staff privileges, or employment for a “medical disciplinary cause or reason.”  In 2016 Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, Inc., doing business as PIH Health Hospital-Whittier, and PIH Health Physicians (collectively, the hospital) terminated Dr. Abdulmouti Alaama’s privileges and staff membership without giving him a hearing.  Dr. Alaama filed a complaint that included causes of action seeking a writ of administrative mandate, alleging, among other things, the hospital denied him the right to a hearing before terminating his privileges.  The trial court denied the petition.  Because the hospital terminated Dr. Alaama’s privileges and staff membership for a “medical disciplinary cause or reason,” we reverse.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Z.B. N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson)

The civil penalties a plaintiff may seek under Labor Code §558 through the Private Attorneys General Act do not include the amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages; although §558 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to recover such an amount, this amount is not a civil penalty that a private citizen has authority to collect through the PAGA.

Z.B. N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson) - filed Sept. 12, 2019

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2520

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com