<?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; feha</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/feha/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>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:02:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Chavez v. Los Angeles Added to Track List</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chavez-v-los-angeles-added-to-track-list/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chavez-v-los-angeles-added-to-track-list/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 18:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Docket here. Although I apparently glossed over it when it was in the Court of Appeal, I&#8217;ve decided this is a case worth keeping an eye on. Here&#8217;s the issue: Does Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 permit a trial &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chavez-v-los-angeles-added-to-track-list/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chavez-v-los-angeles-added-to-track-list/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arteaga Review Denied</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arteaga-review-deniedi/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arteaga-review-deniedi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arteaga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arteaga-review-deniedi/?iphone=true</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has just denied review and depublication of Arteaga. Sent from the road&#8230;.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arteaga-review-deniedi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Artaega v. Brink&#039;s Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/artaega-v-brinks-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/artaega-v-brinks-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 19:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mcdonnel douglas/burdine framework]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is settled law in theory, but rarely in plaintiff&#8217;s practice, that temporal proximity isn&#8217;t a slum dunk prima facie case. The Artaega court states: [T]hough temporal proximity, by itself, may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/artaega-v-brinks-inc/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/artaega-v-brinks-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McDonnel Douglas/Burdine Framework Criticized</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mcdonnel-douglasburdine-framework-criticized/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mcdonnel-douglasburdine-framework-criticized/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[h/t Workplace Prof blog This case states what I and others have long believed: the McDonnell Douglas requirement of a prima facie case is really nothing more these days than an unnecessary distraction.  This case is therefore significant because not &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mcdonnel-douglasburdine-framework-criticized/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mcdonnel-douglasburdine-framework-criticized/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Late Thought on Villaneuve v. Colton</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/late-thought-on-villaneuve-v-colton/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/late-thought-on-villaneuve-v-colton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:22:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[villanueve]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case essentially held that the frivolous claim by the employee subjected the employee to liability for the employer&#8217;s attorneys&#8217; fees because he failed to enter evidence that he couldn&#8217;t pay. Question:  is there anyone out there who has ever &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/late-thought-on-villaneuve-v-colton/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/late-thought-on-villaneuve-v-colton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Metters v. Ralphs: More Arbitroskepticism In California Courts</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co (4th Dist. No. G038380) the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court&#8217;s finding that no valid arbitration agreement was entered into by an employee who was told he had to agree to an arbitration &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/jones-v-the-lodge-at-torrey-pines/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/jones-v-the-lodge-at-torrey-pines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torrey pines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/jones-v-the-lodge-at-torrey-pines/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[4-3, goes parallel with Reno v. Baird.  I never really understood (a) what good making employees personally liable for harassment or retaliation would do, and (b) why retaliation should be treated any differently than harassment.  Non-employers simply aren&#8217;t in a &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/jones-v-the-lodge-at-torrey-pines/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/jones-v-the-lodge-at-torrey-pines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BREAKING:  Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Opinion Forthcoming</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/breaking-jones-v-lodge-at-torrey-pines-opinion-forthcoming/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/breaking-jones-v-lodge-at-torrey-pines-opinion-forthcoming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torrey pines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/breaking-jones-v-lodge-at-torrey-pines-opinion-forthcoming/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case decides whether an individual be held personally liable for retaliation under the FEHA.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/breaking-jones-v-lodge-at-torrey-pines-opinion-forthcoming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reid v. Google Review Granted</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reid-v-google-review-granted/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reid-v-google-review-granted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reid-v-google-review-granted/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversed in part of judgment in civil action. Issues: (1) Should California law recognize the &#8220;stray remarks&#8221; doctrine, which permits the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reid-v-google-review-granted/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reid-v-google-review-granted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CA Supreme Court: Ragingwire affirmed.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ragingwire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court, 5-0, per Werdegar (who appeared to be toughest on the Defendants), affirmed the decision in Ragingwire on the basis that &#8220;simply does not speak to employment law.&#8221;  (Slip Op. at 14.)  That very may well be the &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ca-supreme-court-ragingwire-affirmed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

