<?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; Gentry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/gentry/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>Links for the week of March 31, 2008-April 4, 2008</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/links-for-the-week-of-march-31-2008-april-4-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/links-for-the-week-of-march-31-2008-april-4-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[starbucks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good post on Costco v. Sup. Ct. by Carlton, DiSante &#38; Freudenberger. Supreme Court denies cert on Gentry. [UCL Practitioner] Walsh &#38; Walsh on Startucks&#8217; Barista Tip-gate]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/links-for-the-week-of-march-31-2008-april-4-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast for the week of 11/5/2007</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-1152007/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-1152007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gattuso]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-1152007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a few notes about the past week.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-1152007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gentry: Rehearing Denied</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rehearing denied and Remittitur issued.  Case closed.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Does Everyone Diss the DLSE?</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was preparing to explore the theorizing that I and other bloggers did in the wake of Genrty that it would have implications for employment contracts in general, when I came across this footnote in the recent Murphy v. Check &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Murphy v. Check &#039;N Go (No. A11442): Gentry strikes!</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Applying Gentry&#8216;s unconscionability analysis, the First District struck down an arbitration agreement including a class action waiver. (It did not appear to apply the &#8220;statutory mandate&#8221; part of Gentry.)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on Gentry</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/more-on-gentry/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/more-on-gentry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bruce Nye at Cal Biz Lit has an interesting post on Gentry (h/t The UCL Practitioner.) In my original post on Gentry, I noted that: I think the practical effect of this case will far exceed its holding. In fact, &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/more-on-gentry/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/more-on-gentry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast for the week of 9/24/2007</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-9242007/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-9242007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Legislature is busy with other things this week, so we turn to the courts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-9242007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Circuit City files for reconsideration. [Live from Sacramento!]</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/circuit-city-files-for-reconsideration-live-from-sacramento/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/circuit-city-files-for-reconsideration-live-from-sacramento/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[09/17/2007 Rehearing petition filed Circuit City Stores, Inc., real party in interest by Steven B. Katz, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman &#38; Steiner, LLP CRC 8.25(b]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/circuit-city-files-for-reconsideration-live-from-sacramento/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The LA Times on Gentry</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-la-times-on-gentry/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-la-times-on-gentry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The LA Times appears to be the only major California paper to cover Gentry. (Unless I missed it somewhere else&#8211;please send links.) &#8220;For many workers, class-action lawsuits are the only type of lawsuits they can bring against their employer&#8221; because &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-la-times-on-gentry/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-la-times-on-gentry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gentry Court: Mostly No class-action waivers in employment contracts.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-court-mostly-no-class-action-waivers-in-employment-contracts/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-court-mostly-no-class-action-waivers-in-employment-contracts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, I finally called one. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (= Though Wage Law was right on, calling the split. In another 4-3 split employment opinion, the Supreme Court did not hold that class &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-court-mostly-no-class-action-waivers-in-employment-contracts/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-court-mostly-no-class-action-waivers-in-employment-contracts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

