<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CA Supreme Court: Ragingwire affirmed.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Original reporting. Cradle-to-grave law tracking. Since 2004.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: kent</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>kent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comment-446</guid>
		<description>theoretically, might not the Labor Commissioner still be able take this as a 96(k) claim, what with the employee losing his job for engaging in a legal off-duty activity?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>theoretically, might not the Labor Commissioner still be able take this as a 96(k) claim, what with the employee losing his job for engaging in a legal off-duty activity?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Peters</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comment-445</link>
		<dc:creator>James Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:53:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comment-445</guid>
		<description>I &lt;a href="http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/24/employment-discrimination-against-medical-marijuana-users-is-legal-in-california/" rel="nofollow"&gt;agree&lt;/a&gt; that the court ignored the actual issue of the case, but I guess now that they have ruled and there aren't any more appeals, we might never get an answer (especially if the legislature simply amends the FEHA).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I <a href="http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/24/employment-discrimination-against-medical-marijuana-users-is-legal-in-california/" rel="nofollow">agree</a> that the court ignored the actual issue of the case, but I guess now that they have ruled and there aren&#8217;t any more appeals, we might never get an answer (especially if the legislature simply amends the FEHA).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: In Which I Add to the Dogpile on California Medi-Pot Protections &#171; I Am Not a Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>In Which I Add to the Dogpile on California Medi-Pot Protections &#171; I Am Not a Lawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comment-444</guid>
		<description>[...] from actual lawyers at California Appellate Report, What&#8217;s New In Employment Law?, Storm&#8217;s California Employment Law and probably soon Workplace Prof Blog and The UCL [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] from actual lawyers at California Appellate Report, What&#8217;s New In Employment Law?, Storm&#8217;s California Employment Law and probably soon Workplace Prof Blog and The UCL [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
