Somehow, during my jury service, multiple illnesses, home renovation, out of town conferences, and the normal press of business, I failed to notice this important case until last week, when it came up.

---

California’s FEHA law does not preclude an employer from terminating an employee who uses marijuana in violation of federal law, even if such use is permitted by Proposition 215. (Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. (2005) 32 Cal. App. 4th 590.)Update: It was blogged here. Steve had it covered!

Tags: EEO Law | feha | Ragingwire.

Employer sought writ of mandate to
challenge Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board determination that an applicant
was its employee,
effectively sought to prevent the collection of a tax and was thus
barred by the state Constitution’s “pay first, litigate later” rule. Employer
may obtain judicial review of board’s determination only by paying assessed
unemployment insurance contributions, claiming a refund, and filing an action
for refund in the superior court if the claim is denied.

Tags: Misc.

I know Justice Stevens is old, but seriously.  For those of you needing to understand today’s IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez decision from the Supreme Court, I’ve cribbed from the OED2 for you.

doff, v.
(dQf) Pa. tense and pple. doffed (dQft). [Coalesced form of do off: see do v. 47. Cf. also daff v.2
   In ordinary colloquial use in north of England (not in Scotl.). Elsewhere, since 16th c., a literary word with an archaic flavour. Ray noted it as a northern provincialism; Johnson, as ‘in all its senses obsolete, and scarcely used except by rustics’. In 19th c., from the time of Scott, very frequent in literary use.]
   1. trans. To put off or take off from the body (clothing, or anything worn or borne); to take off or ‘raise’ (the head-gear) by way of a salutation or token of respect.
   c1350 Will. Palerne 2342 Dof blive þis bere skyn.  c1400 Mandeville (Roxb.) xxv. 120 He doffez his hatte.  1401 Pol. Poems (Rolls) II. 107 The sacred host+to whiche we knele and doffe our hodes.  1483 Cath. Angl. 103/1 To Doffe, exuere.  1595 Shakes. John iii. i. 128 Thou weare a Lyons hide! doff it for shame.  1596 Spenser F.Q. vi. ix. 36 Calidore+doffing his bright armes, himselfe addrest In shepheards weed.  1621 G. Sandys Ovid’s Met. xiii. (1626) 259 Then made him d’off those weeds.  1714 Gay Sheph. Week iv. 21 Upon a rising Bank I sat adown, Then doff’d my Shoe.  1768 Beattie Minstr. i. xxxv, The little warriors doff the targe and spear.  1808 Scott Marm. vi. xi, Doffed his furred gown, and sable hood.  1859 Tennyson Enid 1444 The+Earl+cast his lance aside, And doff’d his helm. 

   †b. Const. off; also intr. with with. Obs. rare.
   ?a1400 Morte Arth. 1023 Þow doffe of thy clothes, And knele in thy kyrtylle.  1643 [see doffing vbl. n.].   1764 Foote Mayor of G. ii. Wks. 1799 I. 186 If you will doff with your boots, and box a couple of bouts. 

Tags: wage/hour.

Over at the UCL Practitioner (a fellow TypePad immigrant), Kimberly has begun a series of posts on the statutory repeal rule. In the course of my studies to be admitted to the roll of Solicitors in England, I had occassion to re-read Blackstone, and his view of the common law.   This is central to the statutory repeal rule, because rights at common law are not subject to this rule, according to the precedent she mentions. And the UCL as it stood pre-prop 64 clearly was not a right at common law, but it’s not clear exactly why (to me). Is it because there was no standing requirement? there was an unfair competition tort at common law, so that can’t be it, but it wasn’t as extensive as the prior UCL.

But nor was there any common law tort for discrimination or sexual harassment in employment, yet the Supreme Court held only a year ago that amendments to that law were not presumptively retroactive in McClung.  I’m having trouble reconciling to the two.

So, today, as a series of new ballot initiatives are voted on, we still don’t know what one approved a year ago means.

Tags: Misc.

Welcome to the brand spanking new web-log!  I have gone back and forth on the issue of whether to switch to TypePad for months.  I decided to pull the trigger after yet another blogger outage.  A few points:

• I’ve changed the name.  I’ve put a lot of work into building this blog up, and I’m not too humble to do some branding.
• I will still cover certain "traditional labor" law issues as they arise, but that will no longer be a focal point.  This reflects the simple trend that only 9% of Americans are union employees.
• This was in fact the first blog to cover only California employment law issues only.  It is no longer the only one, so I’ve changed from "only" to "first."  Sounds just as neat to me.
• The ads are down.  It wasn’t doing me a whole world of good, and I was using "AdSense" a Google brand (just like blogger).  Until I even figure out how to integrate that into TypePad, it won’t be here.  It may never be here.
• The old site will remain up for a period of several months, but all of the archives are here.  The old site will stop syndicating at the end of the month.

Thanks for continuing to read!

Tags: Blog News.

Jackson Lewis has the scoop, here.

AB 1825, the law that requires employers with more than 50 employees to train their managers on sexual harassment, is now in effect. But with the little guidance it gets, I’ve had a lot of questions. Who can do the training? Can you do the training? What does it have to cover? Who is a supervisor according to this law? Etc. etc.

Hopefully these regulations will provide some guidance. According to the article linked above, California licensed attorneys can do the training (all-righty then). The trainer should be able to cover:

(A) what is unlawful harassment;
(B) how to intervene when harassing behavior occurs in the workplace;
(C) how to report harassment complaints;
(D) how to respond to a harassment complaint;
(E) how to investigate harassment complaints and an employer’s obligation to do so;
(F) the illegality of retaliation for filing a harassment complaint and how to prevent retaliation from occurring when an employee has filed a harassment complaint; and
(G) the employer’s anti-harassment policy.

Tags: EEO Law.