<?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; Ragingwire</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/ragingwire/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>Employment-related Bills 2008</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/employment-related-bills-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/employment-related-bills-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murphy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ragingwire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SB 674 (Dutton) &#8211; Incentives for employers who provide health care and other benefits. SB 737 (Caleron) &#8211; Legislature&#8217;s intent to clarify meal and rest period law. SB 940 (Yee) &#8211; Temporoary employees must be paid more frequently. SB 953 &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/employment-related-bills-2008/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/employment-related-bills-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</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>
		<item>
		<title>Sac Bee on Ragingwire [Update: Oral Arguments]</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sac-bee-on-ragingwire/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sac-bee-on-ragingwire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEO Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ragingwire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sac-bee-on-ragingwire/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Sacramento Bee had an interesting article on Ross v. Ragingwire this morning, which is the case about whether a positive drug test for state-legal marijuana is grounds for termination. The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday. Justice Joyce L. Kennard &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sac-bee-on-ragingwire/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sac-bee-on-ragingwire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ragingwire to Cal. Supremes</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ragingwire-to-cal-supremes/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ragingwire-to-cal-supremes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEO Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ragingwire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apropos of that post below on Ross v. Ragingwire, the California Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal on the matter. Via EMPLOYMENT LAW NEWS.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ragingwire-to-cal-supremes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc-2/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEO Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ragingwire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s FEHA law does not preclude an &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc-2/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEO Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ragingwire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guest Blogger: Steven M. Chanley Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.The Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) holds that an employer does not violate the FEHA’s prohibition against disability discrimination for firing an employee whose pre-employment screening tested positive due to &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/ross-v-ragingwire-telecommunications-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

