• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR LAW Weekly
  • The HR Weekly

Employment Law

Bay area bistro forks over more than $172k in overtime

New Thai Bistro in Alameda County will pay 14 employees $172,862 after investigators from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division found the restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TB or not TB: That is the question in Oakland

Cooking Around the World, an Oakland after-school cooking camp, has settled charges it violated the ADA when it demoted an employee who tested positive for an inactive form of tuberculosis.

Ensure settlement agreement ends threat of litigation

Sometimes, it makes sense to settle employment-related lawsuits before they go to court. But settling only make sense if the settlement agreement is drafted to ensure there is no possibility of future litigation.

You won in court! Congratulations! Don’t expect to have legal costs reimbursed

Courts are sensitive to the deterrent effect saddling the losing employee with legal costs could have.

No proof of bias: Religious affiliation alone doesn’t disqualify arbitrator

A former employee has lost an appeal of an arbitration case in which he alleged the arbitrator should have disclosed his religious affiliation.

RIF didn’t achieve business goals? OK to repost jobs that were previously cut

If you can clearly explain why you decided to reopen positions that were eliminated earlier, courts are unlikely to conclude you intended to discriminate against those who were not retained during the earlier RIF.

Your website could trigger a bias lawsuit

The California Supreme Court recently confronted the question of whether a customer has standing to sue over alleged discrimination based on a visit to the business’ website rather than its brick-and-mortar locations.

Requiring English not automatically biased

For years, the EEOC has taken the position that rules requiring employees to speak only English at work are discriminatory unless the employer can justify the rule as a business necessity. But now a federal court has concluded that before making an employer justify the rule’s necessity, the affected worker has to show that the policy has a disparate impact on a protected group.

EEOC takes customer harassment seriously

The EEOC wants employers to know that customer preference is never a legitimate reason to allow customers to harass or otherwise discriminate against your employees.

Supreme Court to address LGBT rights at work

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019-2020 term, scheduled to begin Oct. 7, will waste no time getting directly to one of the most contentious employment law issues cases on its docket.