Shaw Valenza LLP : Publications

CURRENT PUBLICATIONS

ARCHIVED PUBLICATIONS

EMPLOYERS GAIN IMMUNITY FROM EMPLOYEES' MISUSE OF COMPANY'S INTERNET ACCESS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-12-19

Advances in technology, particularly the Internet, continue to influence employment law. The new ways in which employees obtain information and communicate with others have revolutionized the workplace.

HOLIDAY BONUSES AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Matt Norfleet
The Daily Recorder
2006-12-05

As the end of the year approaches, many employees are anticipating bonuses. Some may be based on the employer’s financial performance. Others may be based on the workers’ job performance. Some are purely recognition of the end of the year or the holidays.

ATTENTION ALL COMMUTERS — SAN FRANCISCO GIVES PAID SICK LEAVE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Carolyn Burnette
The Daily Recorder
2006-11-24

If you are one of many Sacramento area residents who commute to San Francisco to work, or you are in the process of weighing the pros (more money!) and cons (REALLY long days) of commuting to “The City,” the San Francisco electorate just provided one big item to add to the “plus side” of the equation.

VACATION PAY IN CALIFORNIA: DO YOU WANT TO GET AWAY?
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-11-07

California wage and hour law differs from laws in other states in a number of respects. The law regarding vacation is one such example. The California Court of Appeal in Church v. Jamison recently decided the statute of limitations for vacation claims in a way that increases employers’ potential liability. Employers therefore should review California’s rules regarding this highly prized employee benefit.

ARE OVERWEIGHT EMPLOYEES PROTECTED FROM DISCRIMINATION?
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-10-27

Most employers are aware of their obligations to prevent discrimination and harassment, and to offer reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities and religious practices. An increasing number of Americans are overweight by medical standards, and the media have emphasized the health risks of obesity in recent times. Employers therefore may have questions about whether obesity is protected by the anti-discrimination laws.

NEW CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWS FOR 2007
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-10-11

Every year the California Legislature passes and presents hundreds of bills to the Governor. This year was no exception. The Governor signed a number of bills that will affect California employers, which are summarized below. Unless otherwise specified, these laws take effect on January 1, 2007.

CALIFORNIA COURT STRIKES DOWN MORE NON-COMPETE PROVISIONS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-09-25

Employers in many states use “restrictive covenants,” such as non-compete or non-solicitation agreements, to deter employees from changing jobs. Purchasers of businesses also rely on these agreements. These agreements usually are made to protect trade secrets, such as customer lists, or other proprietary information. Most states’ laws limit these agreements to one extent or another. With just a few narrow exceptions, however, non-compete agreements are per se illegal in California. Two recent decisions by the California Court of Appeal exemplify California law in this area.

AVOIDING LITIGATION OVER RELEASES OF EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-09-15

Employers have several reasons for entering into settlement or separation agreements with employees. A release is used when an employee has filed a formal action against an employer and both sides decide to resolve the matter pre-trial. An employer may wish to resolve all differences with an employee before a dispute is filed in court. Employers and employees also use separation agreements in the context of layoffs, when severance pay is often exchanged for the employee’s promise not to sue.

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS’ OBLIGATIONS WHEN EMPLOYMENT IS TERMINATED
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-09-05

The California Labor Code requires employers to pay employees’ final wages on the day an employee is fired (and on the day she quits if she gives more than 72 hours’ notice). The California Supreme Court recently decided that this rule applies even when the employee is hired to perform a short assignment of just one day.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAYS "AT WILL" MEANS "AT WILL"
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Carolyn Burnette
The Daily Recorder
2006-08-15

In Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., the California Supreme Court was asked to determine whether “at will” employment really means “at will” employment. Most of us who work in California have known for a long time that “at will” means the employment relationship can be ended by the employer or the employee for any reason, at any time. In fact, the Legislature codified this concept in Labor Code section 2922, which provides that California employees are presumed to be at will. Despite these truisms, the employee in Dore attempted to wordsmith his employer’s at-will language — and it almost worked.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS 2005-2006
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-08-09

The United States Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases in the last term. The Court’s opinions address a number of topics, from retaliation to proof of race discrimination to wage and hour violations, and include decisions applicable to public and private sector employers.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS 2005 - 2006
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-07-17

The California Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases since our last summary. The Court’s opinions address a number of topics, from sexual harassment to wage and hour violations, and include decisions applicable to public and private sector employers. Several important employment law cases remain on the Supreme Court’s docket. We summarize below the recently decided cases and those that remain pending.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT EXPANDS TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIMS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-07-07

In Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. White, the United States expanded the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While retaliation claims brought under the less restrictive standards of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) will not immediately be affected by the new Title VII rules, a question now lingers as to whether state law will be revisited.

ONE OPTION FOR REDUCING OVERTIME LIABILITY: THE ADOPTION OF ALTERNATIVE WORKWEEK SCHEDULES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-07-01

Ever since the California Legislature implemented the “daily overtime” law several years ago, which generally requires the payment of overtime if an employee works more than eight hours in a workday, employers have looked for ways to reduce their overtime liability.

CALIFORNIA’S MEAL AND REST PERIOD RULES: THE DEBATE RAGES ON
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-06-30

As many employers have learned recently, California Labor Code section 226.7(b) requires non-exempt employees to be paid one hour’s pay at their regular rate for each workday they are not provided a meal or rest period that complies with the requirements of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage order.

EVALUATING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: TIPS AND PITFALLS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-06-25

Many employers evaluate their employees’ performance at some point during the employment relationship, such as annually or at the conclusion of an introductory period. Often, however, these employers conduct performance reviews as a matter of course without knowing why it is important to do so. Some supervisors and managers also are unaware of legal issues associated with conducting performance evaluations thoroughly and accurately.

PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT JOB REFERENCES: NOT AS RISKY AS IT SOUNDS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-06-20

Many employers hesitate to provide job references because they fear liability. Of course, a negative employment reference could give rise to many different types of claims, including defamation, interference with prospective advantage, blacklisting under Labor Code section 1050, or even retaliation.

“LIGHT DUTY” AND THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-06-15

A California Court of Appeal recently concluded employers are not required to make temporary light-duty positions permanent as an accommodation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The court’s decision in Raine v. City of Burbank provides clarification on this important question, and highlights issues employers should consider in deciding whether and how to administer light-duty programs. Here’s the good news: light duty, handled appropriately, may provide benefits to both employers and employees.

EXEMPT EMPLOYESS AND PARTIAL-DAY ABSENCES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-06-10

For the past several years, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has taken the position that employers may not deduct partial-day absences from exempt employees’ accrued vacation leave banks. Recently, however, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. that such deductions are lawful in certain circumstances.

RULES REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF EMPLOYEES' EXPENSES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw
The Daily Recorder
2006-06-05

Under California law, employees must be fairly compensated when they use their own money or equipment at work. The Legislature’s intent is that employees should not bear losses or expenses incurred in the service of their employers. There are a number of laws and regulations that require employers to reimburse expenses employees incur and to pay for employees’ use of their own property.