bharatbhasha.com
Free Articles  >>  Legal >>  Page 228  >> 

Employment Litigation Update from Temecula Employment Lawyer Ray A Mandlekar





Employer Faces Liability Under WARN Act; "Voluntarily Departed" Exception Held Inapplicable To Employees Who Depart Because of Closing - The Worker Adjustment and Retraining and Notification ("WARN") Act of 1989 covers employers having 100 or more qualified employees. It stipulates that employers serve written notification to employees telling them that they might face layoff due to an anticipated closing or sale of the company, if such is the reality, 60 days in advance. To this end, companies who fail to supply the required notice may be liable to each affected employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days.

In Collins v. Gee W. Seattle LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1169 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011), the business sent out the written notice, but then shut down nine days later - so the notice did not comply with the 60-day necessity. But the concern in the case turned on the fact that the WARN Act applies only if the sale or closing causes 50 or more employees to bear an "employment loss" in a 30-day period. At the time the company issued notice, it had roughly 150 employees. But by the time of closing, only 30. This was due to approximately 120 employees had voluntarily left after they received the notification. Now, the WARN Act reads that an "employment loss" does not include an employee's "voluntary departure." So the company argued against liability because by the time it closed it had fewer than 50 employees; the 120 who left in the preceding days could not be considered toward the 50 required to have an "employment loss," as they were "voluntary departure[s]."

The Ninth Circuit, however, rejected the argument. It held that the carve-out for employees who made a "voluntary departure" does not include employees who leave because of the impending closing or sale. The Ninth circuit decided that accommodating the employer's argument would cut into the protections of the WARN Act; numerous employees may need to vacate the closing business in order to attain other work. The Collins ruling will not be met with favor by covered businesses facing a shutdown or sale.

›Court Allows Wrongful Termination Case Over Employer's Non-Compete Agreement to Proceed - In a recent ruling presenting another potential liability for California employers, the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court permitted a exceptional wrongful termination lawsuit to move forward. California law has long allowed workers to file a suit against their employer for wrongful termination when the employee's termination violates a "public policy." Such litigation could concern, for example, when an employee is terminated for complaining about workplace safety practices or for protesting illegal discrimination.

In Silguero v. Creteguard, 187 Cal. App. 4th 60 (2010), a sales employee was made by her employer company to enter into a non-compete agreement. The agreement prohibited her from participating in "all sales activities for 18 months" should she quit the company, either voluntarily or upon termination. Later, the employer fired the employee. She then gained employment at a new company. Her old employer, however, made contact with her new employer, and asked that the new employer be in accordance with the non-compete agreement. The new employer then told the employee that notwithstanding its belief that the non-compete agreement is legally binding, it made the decision to terminate the employment without delay, in order to "keep the same respect and understanding with colleagues in the same industry."

The fired employee filed suit against the new employer for, among other things, wrongful termination. The Court of Appeal permitted the case to proceed. It ruled that California Business and Professions Code §16600 renders such non-compete agreements void and unenforceable; California has a law allowing the mobility of employees, as well as honest competition. Because the new employer terminated the worker based on an "understanding" with the old company that the employee should not be permitted to continue her employment in sales, that termination violated California's policy against non-compete agreements. Accordingly, the new employer can be liable to the employee for wrongful termination. On October 27, 2010, the California Supreme Court declined to reconsider the decision of the Court of Appeal. This permits the case to proceed for now.

This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.


About Author Ray A. Mandlekar :

Ray A. Mandlekar is a <a href="http://www.mandlekarlaw.com" target="_blank">Temecula litigation attorney</a>  practicing in the field of business, employment and investment litigation.  He is a former partner of national law firm headquartered in San Diego.  <a href="http://mandlekarlaw.com/temecula-business-employment-law-blog/" target="_blank">Temecula Business Attorney</a>, Ray A. Mandlekar


Article Source: https://www.bharatbhasha.com
Article Url: https://www.bharatbhasha.com/legal.php/282091


Article Added on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
LD
Other Articles by Ray A. Mandlekar

Litigation Update from Top Temecula Business and Franchise Lawyer
›New Proposed Bill In California Would Amend Labor Code to Bar Mandatory Employee Agreements to Litigate Arguments Outside California or Apply Non-California Law - On February 7, 2011, California Assembly Member Sandré R. Swanson (D-Alameda) created A.B. 267. The Bill would amend the California Labor Code by adding a new §924. As stated in the Legislative Counsel's Digest, the consequence would be to make void and unenforceable as against public policy any provision in an employment contract...

Temecula Employment and Franchise Lawyer Provides California Minimum Wage Update
Two California Assembly members have introduced bills that would change the California minimum wage policy. On December 6, 2010, Assembly member Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) admitted A.B. 10, which would change California Labor Code §1182.12. The proposed law would bump up the minimum wage, currently $8.00 an hour, to $8.50 an hour, effective January 1, 2012. In addition, the Bill would grant for an adjustment to the minimum wage on January 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, relative to the...

Temecula Business and Employment Lawyer Explains Eminent Employment Policy Adaptations
› State Supreme Court to Decide Employee Meal Break Issue - The California Supreme Court is ready to resolve an issue of significance to employers in the restaurant and service industry. California law entitles a covered worker to take one or more meal breaks if the employee works a selected quantity of hours in a workday. At issue in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008), is whether employers must simply provide employees with the opportunity to...

Temecula Employment Lawyer Ray Mandlekar Gives An Employment Insurance Case Study
›Three Employee Wage Suits Against Companies Recently Named As Class Actions - The storm of wage & hour class actions versus employers marches on unabated. Class action certification allows the claims to move forward on behalf of not simply the employees bringing the lawsuit, but on behalf of all employees. Three such cases from the end of last year are: Wilson v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133304 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010) - Claims by workers for allegedly unreimbursed...

Temecula Business Lawyer Provides Business and Employment Litigation Updates
›EEOC Reports Job Bias Charges Hit Record High in 2010 - Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal agency that enforces numerous federal antidiscrimination employment laws) announced that it received a record amount of charges from employees in FY 2010. The EEOC's press release details that last year, for the first time ever, claims for retaliation - i.e., claims that an employer took manevolent action against an employee for that employee's act of opposing a...

Business Law Update from Temecula Business and Employment Attorney
Court of Appeal Examines Interplay of Attorney Fee-Shifting Statutes of California Labor Code - A prevailing party in litigation may force the other side to pay its court fees only in limited circumstances, such as where a statute or contract allows for the payment. This is what is known as the American Rule. Legal systems of some other countries routinely require the loser in a case to pay the other side's attorney's fees, but ours generally does not. Because attorney's fees to bring or...

Temecula Litigation Attorney Provides Employment Law Update
› U.S. Department of Labor to Refer Complaining Employees to Plaintiff's Attorneys - The Wage & Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor regulates the minimum wage, overtime and bookkeeping provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It gets employee complaints about potential infractions of these acts, and tries to resolve them through conciliation, compromise or litigation. In spite of the fact that the WHD has an increased...

Temecula Business Lawyer Ray A Mandlekar Business and Insurance Legal Update
Another Ninth Circuit Decision Reaffirming Breadth of Insurer's Responsibility to Defend - In a new case the Ninth Circuit ruled than an insurer had a duty to defend its insured, reaffirming the expansive nature of this duty in California. Goerner v. Axis Reinsurance Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21624 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010), concerned an insurance company's refusal to defend its insured, a corporate CEO, pursuant to a Directors & Officer (D&O) liability policy. The D&O policy stated that the...

Temecula Bankruptcy and Litigation Lawyer Provides Business Litigation Update
Consumer Lawsuits Against Debt Collection Agencies Under the FDCPA Still Going Strong - In March of this year, consumers filed 953 cases in federal court alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This represents a significant increase over the filings in February. It is estimated that consumers sued 515 various collection agencies and creditors in the last two weeks of March alone, making it the half-month period...

Murrieta Business and Employment Litigation Lawyer Offers Business and Employment Case Study
›U.S. Supreme Court Rules FLSA Anti-Retaliation Provision Covers Verbal Complaints to Employer - Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the case of Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2009), an action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which rules on wages and working conditions. According to the employee plaintiff, the physical placement of timeclocks the employees used to clock in and out for shifts wrongly prevented employees from...

Click here to see More Articles by Ray A. Mandlekar
Publishers / Webmasters
Article ID: 282091
DELINK URL from Authors Bio
REMOVE Article
Tell A Friend
Leave A Comment!
Download this article in PDF
Report Article!
Search through all the articles:


174 Users Online!!
Related Articles:
Latest Articles:
 
Legal >> Top 50 Articles on Legal
Category - >
Advertising Advice Affiliate Programs Automobiles
Be Your Own Mentor Careers Communication Consumers
CopyWriting Crime Domain Names DoT com Entrepreneur Corner
Ebooks Ecommerce Education Email
Entertainment Environment Family Finance And Business
Food & Drink Gardening Health & Fitness Hobbies
Home Business Home Improvement Humour House Holds
Internet And Computers Kiddos and Teens Legal Matters Mail Order
Management Marketing Marriage MetaPhysical
Motivational MultiMedia Multi Level Marketing NewsLetters
Pets Psychology Religion Parenting
Politics Sales Science Search Engine Optimization
Site Promotion Sports Technology Travel
Web Development Web Hosting WeightLoss Women's Corner
Writing Miscellaneous Articles Real Estate Arts And Crafts
Aging


Disclaimer: The information presented and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of bharatbhasha.com and/or its owners.


Copyright © AwareINDIA. All rights reserved || Privacy Policy || Terms Of Use || Author Guidelines || Free Articles
FAQs Link To Us || Submit An Article || Free Downloads|| Contact Us || Site Map  || Advertise with Us ||
Click here for Special webhosting packages for visitors of this website only!
Vastu Shastra

Small Business eMail Hosting Provided By AwareIndia







Company IDS