<?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; ucl</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/ucl/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>Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/pellegrino-v-robert-half-international-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/pellegrino-v-robert-half-international-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ucl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal holds that a reduction in an attorneys&#8217; fees award for a tack-on UCL claim is not required in a wage and hour case.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/pellegrino-v-robert-half-international-inc/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

