A trial court's direction to prepare an index is preliminary to any order directing disclosure by a public official or supporting the decision of the public official refusing disclosure. This act does not trigger the filing period for a party to seek appellate review, but it is subject to interlocutory review, and the writ petition should be filed within 60 days. A trial court erred in directing the preparation of an index of documents that itself would reveal the identities of third parties involved in confidential communications during the deliberative process of drafting legislation. The court also erred in requiring the release of attorney work product produced by the legislative counsel.
Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. Superior Court (Fowler Packing Co.) - filed Jan. 8, 2018, Third District
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 92
For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Monday, January 8, 2018
Simers v. LA Times Communications
In March 2013, plaintiff T.J. Simers was a well-known and sometimes controversial sports columnist for Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (The Times or defendant). He had held that position since 2000, receiving uniformly favorable and often exceptional performance reviews from defendant. On March 16, 2013, plaintiff, then 62 years old, suffered a neurological event with symptoms similar to a “mini-stroke.” He recovered quickly, for the most part, and soon was again writing his thrice-weekly column.
Two and a half months later, The Times reduced plaintiff’s columns to two per week, to “give [him] more time to write on [his] columns.” His editors expressed the dissatisfaction of upper management with several recent columns, and stated “they had been having problems with [his] writing for the past 18 months.” Two weeks later, The Times learned from an article in another publication that a Hollywood producer (who had just filmed a 90-second video that had “gone viral,” in connection with one of plaintiff’s columns) was apparently developing a television show loosely based on plaintiff’s life. Viewing this as a possible ethical breach, defendant put plaintiff’s columns “on holiday” for 10 days, and then, on June 24, 2013, suspended the column pending an investigation.
On August 8, 2013, after completion of the investigation and several meetings with plaintiff, defendant issued a “final written warning” that removed plaintiff from his position as a columnist and made him a senior reporter, albeit with no reduction in salary “for now.” Plaintiff’s lawyer informed defendant on August 12 that plaintiff could not work in that environment and considered himself to have been constructively terminated.
On September 4, 2013, The Times asked plaintiff to return to his position as columnist. But defendant did not answer plaintiff’s questions about how many columns he would write and whether he had to change his interviewing approach, and plaintiff did not trust The Times. The next day, plaintiff met with editors at the Orange County Register, and by September 9, 2013, had accepted a position as a columnist there.
On October 15, 2013, plaintiff sued The Times. After a 28-day trial in the fall of 2015, the jury found in favor of plaintiff on his claims of disability and age discrimination, and on his claim of constructive termination. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,137,391 in economic damages for harm caused by his constructive termination and $5 million in noneconomic damages. The parties agreed to give the jury a special verdict form that instructed them to fill in the blanks for past and future economic damages only if they found plaintiff was constructively terminated. The special verdict form allowed the jury to award past and future noneconomic damages without identifying which noneconomic damages were caused by the constructive termination and which were caused by the discrimination.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on plaintiff’s constructive termination claim, and otherwise denied JNOV, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict on plaintiff’s age and disability discrimination claims. The court also granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on all damages, economic and noneconomic, finding it was not possible to determine what amount of noneconomic damages the jury awarded because of the discrimination but not because of the constructive discharge. The court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial on plaintiff’s discrimination claims.
Both parties appealed. We affirm the trial court’s orders.
For More information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Two and a half months later, The Times reduced plaintiff’s columns to two per week, to “give [him] more time to write on [his] columns.” His editors expressed the dissatisfaction of upper management with several recent columns, and stated “they had been having problems with [his] writing for the past 18 months.” Two weeks later, The Times learned from an article in another publication that a Hollywood producer (who had just filmed a 90-second video that had “gone viral,” in connection with one of plaintiff’s columns) was apparently developing a television show loosely based on plaintiff’s life. Viewing this as a possible ethical breach, defendant put plaintiff’s columns “on holiday” for 10 days, and then, on June 24, 2013, suspended the column pending an investigation.
On August 8, 2013, after completion of the investigation and several meetings with plaintiff, defendant issued a “final written warning” that removed plaintiff from his position as a columnist and made him a senior reporter, albeit with no reduction in salary “for now.” Plaintiff’s lawyer informed defendant on August 12 that plaintiff could not work in that environment and considered himself to have been constructively terminated.
On September 4, 2013, The Times asked plaintiff to return to his position as columnist. But defendant did not answer plaintiff’s questions about how many columns he would write and whether he had to change his interviewing approach, and plaintiff did not trust The Times. The next day, plaintiff met with editors at the Orange County Register, and by September 9, 2013, had accepted a position as a columnist there.
On October 15, 2013, plaintiff sued The Times. After a 28-day trial in the fall of 2015, the jury found in favor of plaintiff on his claims of disability and age discrimination, and on his claim of constructive termination. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,137,391 in economic damages for harm caused by his constructive termination and $5 million in noneconomic damages. The parties agreed to give the jury a special verdict form that instructed them to fill in the blanks for past and future economic damages only if they found plaintiff was constructively terminated. The special verdict form allowed the jury to award past and future noneconomic damages without identifying which noneconomic damages were caused by the constructive termination and which were caused by the discrimination.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on plaintiff’s constructive termination claim, and otherwise denied JNOV, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict on plaintiff’s age and disability discrimination claims. The court also granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on all damages, economic and noneconomic, finding it was not possible to determine what amount of noneconomic damages the jury awarded because of the discrimination but not because of the constructive discharge. The court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial on plaintiff’s discrimination claims.
Both parties appealed. We affirm the trial court’s orders.
For More information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Friday, January 5, 2018
Kim v. Reins International California, Inc.
A worker who has dismissed his individual claims for wage and hour violations does not have standing under the Private Attorneys General Act to pursue a class claim for wage and hour violations because he is no longer an "aggrieved employee."
Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. - filed Dec. 29, 2017, Second District, Div. Four
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 18
For More information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. - filed Dec. 29, 2017, Second District, Div. Four
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 18
For More information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, etc
An employee's letter to his former employer was properly treated as an admission against interest instead of an attempt to compromise where the letter does not concede any wrongdoing, but simply sets out his accusations of discrimination and his maximal claim. Even if the letter were an offer to compromise, its admission was not prejudicial since the factual claims in the letter were consistent with the evidence the employee put on at trial, and the proposed resolution was consistent with the expert testimony presented by the employee to establish his damages. A trial judge erred in awarding costs and expert witness fees to an employer who prevailed on a worker's discrimination claims under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998(c)(1) where the judge found the claims were not frivolous.
Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, etc. - filed Jan. 2, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 28
For more information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, etc. - filed Jan. 2, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 28
For more information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Breazeale v. Victim Services
A denial of a special motion to strike under California's Anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable in a case deemed to be filed in the public interest. Congress never intended the Federal Arbitration Act to apply to agreements between citizens and prosecutors resolving an individual's potential criminal liability under state law.
Breazeale v. Victim Services - filed Dec. 27, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-16549
For More Information Contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Breazeale v. Victim Services - filed Dec. 27, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-16549
For More Information Contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Thursday, December 14, 2017
NLRB Establishes New Standard Governing Workplace Policies, and Upholds No-Camera Policy in Boeing
NLRB Establishes New Standard Governing Workplace Policies, and Upholds No-Camera Policy in Boeing
Washington, D.C.—In a 3-2 decision involving The Boeing Company, the National Labor Relations Board overruled Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which articulated the Board’s previous standard governing whether facially neutral workplace rules, policies and employee handbook provisions unlawfully interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the prior Lutheran Heritage standard, the Board found that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining workplace rules that do not explicitly prohibit protected activities, were not adopted in response to such activities, and were not applied to restrict such activities, if the rules would be “reasonably construed” by an employee to prohibit the exercise of NLRA rights.
In place of the Lutheran Heritage “reasonably construe” standard, the Board established a new test: when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, the Board will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule.
The Board also announced that, prospectively, three categories of rules will be delineated to provide greater clarity and certainty to employees, employers, and unions.
• Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates as lawful to maintain, either because (i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. Examples of Category 1 rules are the no-camera requirement maintained by Boeing, and rules requiring employees to abide by basic standards of civility. Thus, the Board overruled past cases in which the Board held that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining rules requiring employees to foster “harmonious interactions and relationships” or to maintain basic standards of civility in the workplace.
• Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
• Category 3 will include rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.
Although the maintenance of particular rules may be lawful, the Board held that the application of such rules to employees who have engaged in NLRA-protected conduct may violate the Act, depending on the particular circumstances presented in a given case.
Applying the new standard, the Board concluded that Boeing lawfully maintained a no-camera rule that prohibited employees from using camera-enabled devices to capture images or video without a valid business need and an approved camera permit. The Board majority reasoned that the rule potentially affected the exercise of NLRA rights, but that the impact was comparatively slight and outweighed by important justifications, including national security concerns.
Board Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra was joined by Board Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel in the majority opinion. Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran dissented in the case.
For More information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Washington, D.C.—In a 3-2 decision involving The Boeing Company, the National Labor Relations Board overruled Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which articulated the Board’s previous standard governing whether facially neutral workplace rules, policies and employee handbook provisions unlawfully interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the prior Lutheran Heritage standard, the Board found that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining workplace rules that do not explicitly prohibit protected activities, were not adopted in response to such activities, and were not applied to restrict such activities, if the rules would be “reasonably construed” by an employee to prohibit the exercise of NLRA rights.
In place of the Lutheran Heritage “reasonably construe” standard, the Board established a new test: when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, the Board will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule.
The Board also announced that, prospectively, three categories of rules will be delineated to provide greater clarity and certainty to employees, employers, and unions.
• Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates as lawful to maintain, either because (i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. Examples of Category 1 rules are the no-camera requirement maintained by Boeing, and rules requiring employees to abide by basic standards of civility. Thus, the Board overruled past cases in which the Board held that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining rules requiring employees to foster “harmonious interactions and relationships” or to maintain basic standards of civility in the workplace.
• Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
• Category 3 will include rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.
Although the maintenance of particular rules may be lawful, the Board held that the application of such rules to employees who have engaged in NLRA-protected conduct may violate the Act, depending on the particular circumstances presented in a given case.
Applying the new standard, the Board concluded that Boeing lawfully maintained a no-camera rule that prohibited employees from using camera-enabled devices to capture images or video without a valid business need and an approved camera permit. The Board majority reasoned that the rule potentially affected the exercise of NLRA rights, but that the impact was comparatively slight and outweighed by important justifications, including national security concerns.
Board Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra was joined by Board Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel in the majority opinion. Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran dissented in the case.
For More information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Monday, December 4, 2017
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NASSCO Holdings
The California WARN Act imposes a statutory duty on an employer to notify its workers of an impending mass layoff, even if the layoff is only temporary.
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NASSCO Holdings - filed Nov. 30, 2017, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 5923
For More Information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NASSCO Holdings - filed Nov. 30, 2017, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 5923
For More Information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
