San Francisco Police Officers' Association v. San Francisco Police Commission

A trial court properly made a determination of arbitrability for a union grievance asserting the city had failed to negotiate in good faith before implementing revisions to its use of force policy where the memorandum of understanding between a city and police union specified that arbitrability was to be determined by a court when a grievance is filed regarding actions the city has reasonably found to be necessary to ensure compliance with state law. The trial court properly concluded that the dispute was not arbitrable since the city's power to regulate the use of force by its police officers is a constitutional right which the city cannot suspend, bargain or contract away.

San Francisco Police Officers' Association v. San Francisco Police Commission - filed Sept. 26, 2018, First District, Div. Two
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4759

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions

A plaintiff did not create a disputed issue of material fact about an employer's liability under a theory of respondeat superior by simply challenging the defense witnesses' credibility.

Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions - filed Sept. 21, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4679

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Moss Brothers Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz

A complaint against a defendant for an alleged breach of an arbitration agreement was based on a protected action where the alleged breach was the defendant's act of filing a lawsuit instead of pursuing arbitration for his employment-related claims. Were it not for the defendant's act of filing suit, the plaintiff would have no factual basis for its claims.

Moss Brothers Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz - filed Sept. 20, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4617

For more information contact us at:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act expanded the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act's "regarded-as" definition of disability. Prior to the ADAAA, to sustain a regarded-as claim, the plaintiff had to provide evidence that the employer subjectively believed the plaintiff was substantially limited in a major life activity, but under the ADAAA the plaintiff must show that he has been subjected to a prohibited action "because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity."

Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc. - filed Sept. 17, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 16-16494

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Campbell v. City of Los Angeles

A group of workers can appeal a class decertification order even though they were dismissed from the collective action before final judgment and without prejudice to their individual Fair Labor Standards Act claims since an order of decertification and dismissal disposes of their statutory right to proceed collectively. A group of police officers were not "similarly situated" where they failed to create a triable question about the existence of a department-wide policy or practice discouraging the reporting of overtime.

Campbell v. City of Los Angeles - filed Sept. 13, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 15-56990

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BNSF Railway Company

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission satisfied the elements of a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a) claim by showing an employer had perceived a qualified job applicant as having a disability and that the employer had impermissibly conditioned its offer of employment on the applicant's procurement of a diagnostic test for his perceived disability, at his own expense.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BNSF Railway Company - filed Aug. 29, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 16-35457

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Harris v. County of Orange

When a memorandum of understanding is explicit as to the substance of a benefit conferred upon workers, but not the term of the benefits, a party can rely on extrinsic evidence to prove the existence of an implied term requiring the continuation of that benefit in perpetuity. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to retirees. Changes in retirees' health benefits are covered by the FEHA, despite the fact that they are not active employees.

Harris v. County of Orange - filed Sept. 5, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 13-56061

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Hansen v. Group Health Cooperative

The state law claims brought by mental health providers against an insurance company over the use of screening criteria for mental healthcare coverage did not fall within the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act since their claims for unfair and deceptive business practices were based on independent duties beyond those imposed by their patients' ERISA plans.

Hansen v. Group Health Cooperative - filed Sept. 4, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 16-35684

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers

The enactment of Nevada Senate Bill 223 was a legitimate exercise of Nevada's traditional state authority. SB 223 was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because it did not intrude on any federally-regulated field, conflict with ERISA's objectives, or otherwise impermissibly "relate to" ERISA plans. ERISA empowers ERISA trusts to bring actions against subcontractors for subcontractors' labor debts, but it does not establish a cause of action for collecting debts from non-parties to an ERISA plan. A challenge to the validity of SB 223 was not rendered moot by the repeal of the bill and the enactment of a replacement measure.

Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers - filed Sept. 4, 2018
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 16-15588

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/