Temecula Business and Employment Lawyer Addresses Pending EmploymentEmployer Rule Changes

Jan. 31, 2011 - PRLog -- Update provided courtesy of Ray A. Mandlekar, 951-200-3427

› State Supreme Court to Decide Employee Meal Break Issue - The California Supreme Court is ready to resolve an topic of significance to employers in the restaurant and service industries. California law entitles a covered worker to take one or more "meal" breaks if the employee works a selected number of hours in a workday. At issue in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008), is whether employers must only provide employees with the opportunity to take their meal breaks or, as the plaintiff employees contend, the employer has an affirmative obligation to make sure that workers in fact take their breaks. The issue comes up where an employee, for example, would prefer to work as an alternative of taking the offered break or voluntarily cuts the break short. It is of consequence because if an employer must guarantee that meal breaks are taken, employees who did not take their breaks may later try to sue the employer for "premium wages" under the Labor Code - i.e., one extra hour of pay for each day the meal period was not taken. A lower court in Brinker ruled in favor of the employer, stressing that to require employers to ensure breaks are taken would place an insurmountable burden on them. Employers eagerly await the Supreme Court's decision on the issue.

› U.S. Supreme Court to Resolve Case Featuring Indirect Employment Discrimination Claim - It is clear under federal anti-discrimination law that an employer decisionmaker - that is, one who hires, fires, promotes or demotes employees - cannot take derogatory action against an employee based on that decisionmaker's prejudicial beliefs. For example, a supervisor who terminates an employee out of personal animosity toward that employee's religion or gender subjects the employer to impending liability under the law. But what about the circumstances where the decisionmaker lacks any discriminatory purpose, yet terminates an employee after being influenced to do so by another employee who secretly acted with discriminatory purpose? Is the employer nevertheless liable? This dilemma arises when an employee harboring discriminatory intent fabricates a charge against another employee, which is then acted upon by a neutral supervisor who fails to conduct an independent investigation of the charge. The U.S. Supreme Court will attend to the issue in its review of Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 560 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2009). Notably, this theory of indirect discrimination has already been effectively used by plaintiffs in cases under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act - so California employers should act in accordance of the theory, regardless of the outcome in Staub.

› California Appellate Court Invalidates Arbitration Agreement in the Employment Context - Employers often seek to defend themselves from the effects of employee litigation by having new employees sign arbitration agreements, which remove lawsuits out of the public justice system and have the issue determined by a neutral private person instead of a jury. Yet when a dispute arises, the employee can challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement itself. If the employee is successful, the case may end up back in the court system - and the employer loses the benefit of having the arbitration agreement. This is what occured in the current case of Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corp., 189 Cal. App. 4th 387 (2010). In Trivedi, a terminated CEO sued his former employer for wrongful termination. Although the parties had an arbitration agreement in place, the CEO succeeded in having it invalidated for a number of reasons. These reasons included the fact that when the agreement was signed, the company did not provide the CEO with a copy of the policies of the arbitrating body. Also, the court understood the agreement to subject the CEO to a higher level of risk of having to pay the employer's legal fees if he lost the arbitration. The Trivedi case underscores the need for employers to hire competent counsel in the drafting and implementation of arbitration agreements, to reduce the chance that a court will later dismiss the agreement.

This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.  Read more at http://www.mandlekarlaw.com