Warning: persons engaged in malicious cyber-enabled activities may be added to the specially designated nationals list

Posted by Daniel O. Jamison on

Healthcare providers have long been aware that there can be severe penalties for submitting claims to a federal healthcare payment program where the services were provided by a person excluded from participation in the program.   Eligibility of personnel to participate in such programs is determined through background checks, with appropriate updating, that include checking the […]

Continue to Article »

New California Agency Disclosure Requirements for Commercial Agents and Brokers

Posted by Dowling Aaron on

As of January 1, 2015, commercial real estate agents and brokers in California are required to comply with a more strict set of agency disclosure requirements. The effect of which imposes stringent agency disclosure requirements on commercial brokers (formerly applicable only to residential brokers) in connection with the sale (or lease exceeding one year) of […]

Continue to Article »

Must the harassment to which an employee is subjected be severe or pervasive before an employer can be liable for failure to prevent harassment under FEHA?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc.(filed 3/6/15) B253154 is a case in which the jury awarded plaintiff employee $35,000 in compensatory damages, plus $250,000 in punitive damages, based on its finding that defendant employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment by the massage therapy company’s customers. However, while the jury made a special […]

Continue to Article »

Does injured exerciser, who signed release of liability, present triable issue of gross negligence for health club’s inaction on various machine clip problem raised earlier?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

In Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness (pub. ordered 2/19/15) B255866, plaintiff was injured on a low row machine when the clip connecting a handlebar to a cable/pulley assembly attached to weights failed. Plaintiff had read a warning on the machine advising users to be sure the safety clip was in working order prior to use. Additionally […]

Continue to Article »

WARNING!! AN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE MAY NOT BE AN ENFORCEABLE “ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE”

Posted by Daniel O. Jamison on

California’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”) at Civil Code sections 1633.1 et seq. provides at section 1633.7; “(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. (b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used […]

Continue to Article »

May courts review arbitration award consistent with employment agreement forbidding outside work where employee exercised unwaivable statutory right?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

In Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (filed 1/29/15) S207536, the California Supreme Court responds, “No.”   The court concluded that even if the arbitrator in that case committed error in accepting the untested “honest belief” defense, any error did not deprive the employee plaintiff of an unwaivable statutory right because of the overriding rationale that employee was […]

Continue to Article »

New Requirements For Commercial Landlords

Posted by Dowling Aaron on

Effective January 1, 2015, commercial landlords are prohibited from entering into leases or other occupancy agreements that include any unreasonable restriction or prohibition on the installation or use of an electric vehicle changing station (“EV Station”) in a parking space associated with the commercial property. AB 2265 was enacted in an effort to promote, encourage […]

Continue to Article »

Must an employer compensate 24-hour shift employee for on-site sleep time?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

In my December 18, 2013 blog article, I commented on the California Supreme Court action in granting review of and depublishing the Court of Appeal opinion in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions Inc. I noted there may be no safe haven to allow most employers to contract away employees’ claims for wages for employer-controlled sleep […]

Continue to Article »

Employee security screening time in departing from warehouse work site is not compensable under FLSA, but California employers beware.

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

The Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), which provides minimum wage and overtime compensation to employees for hours worked per week in excess of 40, was amended by Congress in 1947 (Portal-to-Portal Act) to exempt an employer from liability for (1) time spent by employee traveling to work site, and (2) activities preliminary or […]

Continue to Article »