<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Storm&#039;s Employment Law &#187; brinker</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/brinker/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 15:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Brinker: No Comment</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-no-comment/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-no-comment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I feel a special duty to report on the Brinker case, since it was so long-awaited and is so important to this field—and most especially because the results in the case are already the subject of claims from both sides &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-no-comment/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-no-comment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In re Tobacco II Cases</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-tobacco-ii-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-tobacco-ii-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 21:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off topic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ucl]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CalBizLit and The UCL Practitioner have some excellent posts up on the Tobacco cases and there&#8217;s no need for me to duplicate their great work. In the employment context, this would appear to allow employees to sue on behalf of &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-tobacco-ii-cases/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-tobacco-ii-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Response on Brinker</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WageLaw posted an opinion piece on the Brinker case today. In the spirit of bloggy dialogue, I thought I would respond. Knapp writes that &#8220;[i]n recent years, defense lawyers have enjoyed a pro-business trend in California court decisions.  The Court &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brinkley</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinkley/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinkley/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brinkley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As many haven noted, another Court of Appeal case has agreed with Brinker. Oddly, it&#8217;s named Brinkley. Greg correctly points out: don&#8217;t rely on this one either, it will probably fall under a &#8220;grant and hold&#8221; since the same essential &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinkley/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinkley/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DLSE Pretends to Rescind Brinker Memo</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-pretends-to-rescind-brinker-memo/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-pretends-to-rescind-brinker-memo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Walsh has more. This is simply not acceptable. Why is Bradstreet (1) flouting the law, (2) encouraging a lawsuit against her department, (3) putting both employers and employees at risk here? This. Helps. No. One. Unacceptable.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-pretends-to-rescind-brinker-memo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brinker Review Granted</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-review-granted/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-review-granted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#8217;t want to say I told you so, but I told you so. (Jul. 23) Another epic DLSE fail. The DLSE is, in my opinion, responsible for anyone that relied on their reckless and faulty memorandum in the wake of &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-review-granted/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-review-granted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brinker Petition For Review Filed</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-petition-for-review-filed/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-petition-for-review-filed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As first reported by WageLaw, the petition for review in Brinker has indeed been filed.  You can view the docket here. (The new case number is S166350.) I long for the day when at least the Appellate courts put their filings on-line. &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-petition-for-review-filed/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-petition-for-review-filed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brinker Deadlines</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-deadlines/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-deadlines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have August 21, 2008 as the date the Brinker opinion goes final, and, therefore I have September 1, 2008 as the deadline to file a Petition for Review (unless an extension is granted).  My calendaring skills are—well, let&#8217;s just &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-deadlines/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-deadlines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brinker Madness!</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-madness/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-madness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just an anecdote.  I was at a mediation yesterday.  Both my client and the mediator asked me about the Brinker case, and both were under the impression it was solid good law.   Does the DLSE, who is apparently trying &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-madness/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brinker-madness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DLSE Updates Manual To Reflect Brinker (huh?)</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to WageLaw and this memo posted by Shaw &#38; Valenza, the DLSE has changed their Field Manual to order enforcement along the lines of the recent Brinker case.  As far as I know, the case hasn&#8217;t been dismissed (the &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

