A new Idaho statute (Idaho Code 44-2701 et seq.) set to go into effect July 1, 2008 defines presumptively reasonable limitations applicable to covenants against competition and solicitation by employees and independent contractors.
Under the statute, a noncompetition period of up to 18 months are presumptively reasonable, as is a geographic scope that includes anywhere
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued four labor and employment-related decisions; none, however, were big surprises or substantial changes in the law.
First, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the Court held 8-0 that an employer defending an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case bears the burden of proving a "reasonable factors other than age" or "RFOA" affirmative defense. Truth be told, most defense lawyers have assumed that it was the employer’s burden to prove the affirmative defense; this decision simply confirms that assumption.
Continue Reading Big Day at the Supreme Court: Four New L&E Decisions
In Emerald v. Bureau of Labor, The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a Bureau of Labor and Industries determination that an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s off-duty medical marijuana use. However, the case was affirmed on a technicality – again leaving Oregon employers wondering if they really have to accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use. Continue Reading Oregon Court of Appeals: Keep Accommodating Medical Marijuana (For Now….)
Oregon’s anti-discrimination statute allows an employee alleging employment discrimination to file either a lawsuit (which results in a jury trial) or an administrative complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (which results in an administrative hearing with no jury). In Emerald v. Bureau of Labor, the employer argued that allowing an employee to arbitrarily choose whether or not there will be a jury trial violates the employer’s right to a jury trial under the Oregon Constitution. Not so, ruled the Oregon Court of Appeals earlier this week. Continue Reading Oregon Court of Appeals Upholds Employment Discrimination Statute
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that employees could not sue their employer for back pay over missed rest and meal breaks. Want to know more? You can either read the court’s opinion, or read a more concise yet equally informative summary of Garfur v. Legacy written by yours truly. Note to employers: don’t start making your
On April 1, 2008, Governor Christine Gregoire signed new laws requiring Washington employers of any size to provide two kinds of leave to Washington employees: domestic violence leave for victims and family members, and military family leave. To learn more, check out Stoel Rives’ update.
A California Superior Court ordered Starbucks Corp. to pay $105 million in restitution to baristas who were required to pool their tips with supervisors. Chou v. Starbucks Corp., Cal. Super. Ct. No. GIC836925 (Mar. 19, 2008). The class action case was brought on behalf of all baristas who worked at any California Starbucks going
In a ruling that could simplify the defense of retaliation claims in California, the California Supreme Court recently held that there exists no individual liability for retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines P’ship, (Cal. Mar. 3, 2008). Although the FEHA prohibits discrimination by "an