Copy
Several important cases are discussed in our August 2013 Newsletter. Please let us know if you have any questions or feedback for consideration. Thank you.
View this email in your browser

NEWSLETTER - AUGUST 2013


Supreme Court Denies Review

in Several Important Cases

In a post-Brinker world, litigants have wanted to understand the contours of the meal and rest period laws and how these laws might apply in a myriad of factual situations.  While the Court has provided some clarification, it has also denied review in several cases that would have helped clarify this changing area of law. [Continue Reading]

Violation of Public Policy Claims Precluded by Labor Arbitration

In Wade v. Ports America Management, Inc. decided on August 2, 2013, the Court of Appeal declared that a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy was precluded due to the fact that the parties had participated in a labor arbitration pursuant to the governing collective bargaining agreement. This contradicted a prior ruling of the Court of Appeal as it related to the preclusion of Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.

The facts of the case are as follows, plaintiff, an African American male and a longshoreman, was laid off by defendant. He was more senior than some of the workers retained by the company. Wade contended this was a breach of the collective bargaining agreement and a wrongful termination. Included within the grievance, was an allegation of discrimination against minorities.  [Continue Reading]

Employee Handbooks May Not Bind
- California Court of Appeals

In a recent California Court of Appeals decision, Avery v. Integrated Healthcare, Inc. (7/23/13) the 4th Appellate District, Division 3 affirmed a trial Court ruling denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

The rationale from their ruling stemmed from the fact that “[Defendant] Integrated failed to establish Plaintiff agreed to the specific arbitration agreement Integrated submitted to the trial court.” Therefore, in the agreement sought to be enforced, there was no evidence that the plaintiff had actually agreed to it.  [Continue Reading]
Facebook
Facebook
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Website
Website
California Supreme Court Dismisses
Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc.

In an interesting development, the California Supreme Court dismissed review in Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc. because the parties had reached a settlement. The Wisdom case in the Court of Appeal hadCalifornia Supreme Court Seal declared that an arbitration agreement signed as part of an employment application was procedurally unconscionable. The Court of Appeal opined that, “We agree with the trial court that there is abundant evidence that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable. The contract, being one of adhesion, was . . . [Continue Reading]
Forward to Friend
Share
Tweet
+1
Share
Copyright © 2013 Kingsley & Kingsley, All rights reserved.


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences