News & Articles
One of the most difficult wage and hour issues for agricultural employers is where the 10 hour workday for field work ends, and where the 8 hour work day for preparing agricultural commodities for market begins.
On February 6, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order reversing a major portion of an arbitration award and vacating an award of $1,040,000 due to the fact there was no substantial evidence presented at arbitration to support the award.
The California Supreme Court has overruled one of its own decisions from more than 75-years ago that adopted a limitation on the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. In a decision issued on January 14, 2013 (RiverIsland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association, California Supreme Court case number S190581), the Supreme Court concluded that its prior decision in Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258 was “ill-considered’ and an “aberration.”
Employees are entitled to various leaves of absence and time off work under both state and federal law. Many employers, particularly small employers, are unaware of the extent and in some instances even the existence, of various rights employees have to leaves of absence and time off from work. What follows is an abbreviated version of California employers’ legal obligations to provide leaves and time off from work for small businesses, i.e., those employing fewer than 25 employees.
McCormick Barstow Associate, Joanna MacMillan, is quoted in the Wall Street Journal Online.
On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued the highly anticipated decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v Superior Court, a case that provides badly needed clarification with respect to employers' obligations to provide meal and rest periods. Unfortunately, especially for agricultural employers, the decision leaves some critical issues unresolved that will create confusion regarding management and rest breaks on farms and ranches.
As most California employers have learned by now, it is getting more and more difficult to own a business in California due to the ever-increasing employee-friendly laws that make "extortion" lawsuits convenient and perfunctory, even with the most justified of terminations. To minimize exposure, it is important for employers to understand and comply with what, for most, is a complicated area of law. A large part of this strategy requires that employers stay up to date on new legislation and case authority in the realm of labor and employment law. The following is non-exhaustive summary of new laws and cases that will affect most employers.
By now, it’s likely that most attorneys have figured out that unmasking an anonymous Internet speaker (“Anony”) seems impossible. It’is also just as likely that the list of questions regarding how to reveal an Anony, so they can be pursued for damages or served with an injunction, is still longer than the list of answers.
Federal trademarks are registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That office also issues patents upon an extensive application and review process. Holders of these intellectual property rights might sit up and take notice if receiving emailed notifications appearing to be from the USPTO.
A recent Ninth Circut opinion again points up the need to draft arbitration clauses carefully and specifically, to capture the client's objectives in considering a suitable alternative forum to resolve disputes over the contractual relationship. If the parties want the arbitator to follow legal athorities, they not only need to specify that in the clause but also need to avoid incorporating fereral law. Other issues such as the form of decision, the scope of discovery, and the scope of court review also need to be discussed with the client and not simply presumed