<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.lexblog.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss 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/" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Employment Law Observer</title>
	
	<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com</link>
	<description>Insight &amp; Commentary on Employment &amp; Agency Issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 22:23:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.lexblog.com/EmploymentLawObserver" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="employmentlawobserver" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0">EmploymentLawObserver</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0">http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
		<title>Arbitration Agreement Between Purported Employer and Employees Unconscionable, Court of Appeal Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/arbitration-agreement-between-purported-employer-and-employees-unconscionable-court-of-appeal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/arbitration-agreement-between-purported-employer-and-employees-unconscionable-court-of-appeal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 22:23:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[California Court of Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independent Contractor v. Employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wage & Hour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman v. Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaniego v. Empire Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Samaniego v. Empire Today, Plaintiffs worked as carpet installers for Defendant, Empire Today.  When they were initially hired, and again later during their employment, Plaintiffs were given form contracts and told to sign them if they wanted to work for Empire.  The contracts contained arbitration provisions.  Plaintiffs later filed a putative class action challenging... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/arbitration-agreement-between-purported-employer-and-employees-unconscionable-court-of-appeal-rules/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/arbitration-agreement-between-purported-employer-and-employees-unconscionable-court-of-appeal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Action Based on 7-Eleven’s Payroll System Fails, Court of Appeal Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/action-based-on-7-elevens-payroll-system-fails-court-of-appeal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/action-based-on-7-elevens-payroll-system-fails-court-of-appeal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[California Court of Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wage & Hour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aleksick v. 7-Eleven]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Business and Professional Code 17200]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Plaintiff Aleksick represented a class claiming that 7-Eleven&#8217;s payroll system violated California Business and Professional Code 17200.  The complaint alleged that 7-Eleven&#8217;s method of converting partial hour worked from minutes to hundredths of an hour sometimes docked employees of few seconds of time, and therefore shorted them commensurate pay.  The trial... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/action-based-on-7-elevens-payroll-system-fails-court-of-appeal-rules/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/action-based-on-7-elevens-payroll-system-fails-court-of-appeal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employee’s Wage Deduction Claim Not Preempted By Federal Law, Court of Appeal Determines</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/employees-wage-deduction-claim-not-preempted-by-federal-law-court-of-appeal-determines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/employees-wage-deduction-claim-not-preempted-by-federal-law-court-of-appeal-determines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[California Court of Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collective Bargaining Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Labor Code 201]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Labor Code 218.5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Labor Code 221]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor Management Relations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sciborski v. Pacific Bell Directory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Sciborski v. Pacific Bell Directory, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, determined that an employee’s claims for wage deductions under California Labor Code 221 was not preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 185). Sciborski was a sales representative at Pacific Bell, selling advertising for... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/employees-wage-deduction-claim-not-preempted-by-federal-law-court-of-appeal-determines/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/employees-wage-deduction-claim-not-preempted-by-federal-law-court-of-appeal-determines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Sues Florida Firefighters Union Over Allegedly Discriminatory Test</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-sues-florida-firefighters-union-over-allegedly-discriminatory-test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-sues-florida-firefighters-union-over-allegedly-discriminatory-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Felsenfeld</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ricci v. DeStefano]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has sued the City of Jacksonville, Florida’s firefighters union for basing promotions on a written test that few black candidates have passed. The suit raises the thorny question of whether an employer violates federal discrimination laws by requiring a written test for advancement. According to the EEOC complaint,... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-sues-florida-firefighters-union-over-allegedly-discriminatory-test/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-sues-florida-firefighters-union-over-allegedly-discriminatory-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Tells Employers, “Do As We Say, Not As We Do”</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-tells-employers-do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-tells-employers-do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 21:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The &#8220;Guidance&#8221; approved by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (&#8220;EEOC&#8221;) on April 25, 2012, restricts employers’ ability to consider criminal history in hiring and retention decisions.  In so doing, it contains some unintended ironies. Not surprisingly, the Guidance provide that an employer violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (&#8220;Title VII&#8221;) if... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-tells-employers-do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/eeoc-tells-employers-do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Golf Course Settles Discrimination Retaliation Suit With EEOC</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/golf-course-settles-discrimination-retaliation-suit-with-eeoc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/golf-course-settles-discrimination-retaliation-suit-with-eeoc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 21:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Felsenfeld</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Golf International, Inc., a golf course and restaurant in Fountain Hills, Arizona, has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle an employment discrimination suit field by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to the EEOC suit, Golf International violated civil rights laws when it fired a male employee, Jeffrey White, who had submitted an... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/golf-course-settles-discrimination-retaliation-suit-with-eeoc/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/golf-course-settles-discrimination-retaliation-suit-with-eeoc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NRLB Takes Aim At 24 Hour Fitness Over Employee Arbitration Opt-Out Policy</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/nrlb-takes-aim-at-24-hour-fitness-over-employee-arbitration-opt-out-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/nrlb-takes-aim-at-24-hour-fitness-over-employee-arbitration-opt-out-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 18:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mandatory Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[24 Hour Fitness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[D.R. Horton Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Arbitration Act of 1925]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Labor Relations Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NLRB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vynior's Case]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As reported in The Recorder, (subscription required) the National Labor Relations Board has filed a formal complaint against 24 Hour Fitness, alleging the gym company&#8217;s arbitration opt-out policy compels employees to waive their rights to utilize the civil litigation system, and in particular, class actions. According to The Recorder, 24 Hour Fitness requires employees to... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/nrlb-takes-aim-at-24-hour-fitness-over-employee-arbitration-opt-out-policy/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/nrlb-takes-aim-at-24-hour-fitness-over-employee-arbitration-opt-out-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Attorney Fees Can Be Awarded for Non-Payment of Rest Breaks, California Supreme Court Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/no-attorney-fees-can-be-awarded-for-non-payment-of-rest-breaks-california-supreme-court-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/no-attorney-fees-can-be-awarded-for-non-payment-of-rest-breaks-california-supreme-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 17:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meal & Rest Break]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Labor Code 1194]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Labor Code 218.5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Labor Code 226.7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that neither California Labor Code section 1194 nor section 218.5 authorize the payment of attorney fees in an action seeking recovery for denial of required rest breaks under section 226.7. Section 1194 authorizes recovery of attorney fees by a prevailing employee on a... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/no-attorney-fees-can-be-awarded-for-non-payment-of-rest-breaks-california-supreme-court-rules/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/05/no-attorney-fees-can-be-awarded-for-non-payment-of-rest-breaks-california-supreme-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Places Limits on Consideration of Criminal Records in Hiring Decisions</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/eeoc-places-limits-on-consideration-of-criminal-records-in-hiring-decisions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/eeoc-places-limits-on-consideration-of-criminal-records-in-hiring-decisions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Felsenfeld</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equal Employment Opportunities Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawobserver.default.wp1.lexblog.com/?p=306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Wednesday, April 24, 2012, approved a guideline restricting employers’ ability to consider criminal history in hiring decisions. Under the new “Guidance,” taking an individual’s arrest and conviction records into account may constitute discrimination under the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even an employer’s neutral... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/eeoc-places-limits-on-consideration-of-criminal-records-in-hiring-decisions/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/eeoc-places-limits-on-consideration-of-criminal-records-in-hiring-decisions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wall Street Journal learns of new proposed federal rules that would increase employers’ burdens in complying with the ADA</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/wall-street-journal-learns-of-new-proposed-federal-rules-that-would-increase-employers-burdens-in-complying-with-the-ada/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/wall-street-journal-learns-of-new-proposed-federal-rules-that-would-increase-employers-burdens-in-complying-with-the-ada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael A. S. Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ADA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equal Employment Opportunities Commission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/?p=298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal editorial page (subscription required) today reports that its sources say that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission plans “a major rewrite” of requirements for compliance with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.  Among these are: Rules that would expand unpaid leave; Rules restricting the disciplining of workers who qualify as disabled under... <a class="more" href="http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/wall-street-journal-learns-of-new-proposed-federal-rules-that-would-increase-employers-burdens-in-complying-with-the-ada/">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawobserver.com/2012/04/wall-street-journal-learns-of-new-proposed-federal-rules-that-would-increase-employers-burdens-in-complying-with-the-ada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

