A California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a non-compete given in connection with the sale of a business was unenforceable. Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 904. Specifically, the Court held that because the non-compete period began on the date of the employee’s termination from the successor company — rather than on… Read More
Posts Categorized In: Employment Law Advice & Counsel
Arbitration Clause in Employee Handbook Does Not Create an Enforceable Contract
In Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child Services, the California Court of Appeal held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in a lengthy employee handbook — without more — does not create a binding, enforceable arbitration agreement between employer and employee. In Sparks, the employer utilized a lengthy employee handbook that contained a… Read More
If You Fire an Employee for Wrongdoing, Can You Successfully Challenge His Claim for Unemployment Benefits?
Whether a fired employee is eligible for unemployment in California depends on whether the employee’s conduct constituted “misconduct” within the meaning of Section 1256 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code. If the wrongful conduct rose to the level of “misconduct,” then the employer may be successful in challenging the employee’s right to unemployment benefits. But… Read More
Court Allows Chargebacks Against Advanced Commissions
In Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, the California Court of Appeal clarified when a commission advance may be “clawed back” by an employer. The answer depends on whether the advance payment was fully earned when advanced (which made the payment a wage which could not be clawed back) or if the advance payment had conditions… Read More
IRS Announces Guidance on Withholding of Tips
The IRS today released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2012-26 providing guidance on how taxes are imposed on tips under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The bulletin is in question-and-answer format and includes an explanation of both the employer’s and employee’s obligations. The bulletin also addresses the following issues: — The difference between a tip and… Read More
Employee’s Refusal to Sign Discipline Form is “Misconduct” Warranting a Denial of Unemployment Insurance Benefits
When you present an employee with a performance review or disciplinary action form and ask that employee to sign it, his refusal constitutes “insubordination.” That is, by itself, grounds for firing the employee. But, is it also “misconduct” within the meaning of Section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code such that you can also challenge… Read More
Medical Marijuana Use Not Protected by ADA
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in James v. City of Costa Mesa that an individual who is discriminated against because of his use of medical marijuana – even if lawful in his home state – has no claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court reasoned that the ADA… Read More
EEOC Issues Guidance on Employers’ Use of Criminal Records in Hiring
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published new guidelines for how employers should (1) handle inquiries into arrest and criminal conviction records of applicants and employees, and (b) make employment and hiring decisions when criminal backgrounds are part of the consideration. The full text of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 915.002 is available here…. Read More
EEOC Says Transgender Applicants and Employees Protected Under Title VII
On April 20, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled in Macy v. Holder that transgendered applicants and employees are protected from employment discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark decision marks the first time that a federal court or agency has extended Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination… Read More
California Supreme Court Issues Long-Awaited Brinker Decision Clarifying Employers’ Meal and Rest Break Obligations
On April 12, 2012, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court that employers are not required to police their employees and ensure that employees actually take their 30-minute meal breaks. The Court also ruled that employers are not required to provide 10-minute rest breaks before meal breaks. The Brinker… Read More