Photo of Tony DeCristoforo

Tony DeCristoforo is an employment litigator who focuses his practice on the representation of employers and supervisors in disputes in state and federal courts, as well as administrative proceedings and arbitrations. Tony has extensive experience handling wage and hour class actions and claims for discrimination, wrongful termination and sexual harassment. He also advises employers on a wide range of employment-related issues, including wage and hour law, employment agreements, employee handbooks and statutory leave rights.

A clear and comprehensive computer policy is an essential component of any employee handbook. Last week, a California appellate court ruled that when such a policy is in place, an employee who uses the company computer to e-mail her attorney about perceived harassment and discrimination in the workplace waives the attorney-client privilege.

In Holmes v. Petrovich

The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has issued an opinion letter in which it concludes that California law does not prohibit an employer from temporarily reducing the work schedule of an exempt employee from five days a week to four days a week, and correspondingly reducing the employee’s salary by 20 percent.  The

The California Supreme Court has issued its decision in Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., finding that an employer’s placement of a hidden camera in an office used by two employees did not violate the employees’ right to privacy.  This case has been closely watched (OK, pun intended) as it worked its way through the appellate courts.  Like all workplace privacy cases in California, the case is highly fact-specific and should not be interpreted as encouraging employers to conduct clandestine surveillance of employees.

Hillsides operated a residential facility for neglected and abused children.  Plaintiffs Hernandez and Lopez were employees of Hillsides who shared an enclosed office and performed clerical work during daytime business hours.  Hillsides learned that late at night, after the plaintiffs had left the premises, an unknown person repeatedly used a computer in the plaintiffs’ office to access and view pornographic web sites.  Concerned that the culprit might be a staff member who worked with the children who resided there, Hillsides set up the hidden camera, which could be operated from a remote location at any time.  Neither of the plaintiffs was suspected of being the culprit, and the employer only activated the camera after hours when the plaintiffs were gone.  The plaintiffs’ activities were never viewed or recorded by means of the surveillance system.Continue Reading California Supreme Court: No Privacy Violation for Employer’s Placement of Video Camera in Employees’ Office

Implementing a new audit initiative, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) has served Notices of Inspection on 652 businesses nationwide.  The notices inform employers that ICE will be inspecting their I-9’s and other employment records to ascertain whether the employers are in compliance with federal immigration laws and regulations.

The Obama administration appears to be taking a new approach