Thursday, March 27th, 2008

No Individual Liability For Retaliation Under State Law

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that a supervisor could not be held individually liable for retaliation based on sexual orientation, reversing a $155,000 verdict. California state law limits claims for employment discrimination to “employers,” but the same state law prohibits retaliation by “any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person.” The employee argued that […]

Thursday, March 27th, 2008

EEOC Complaints Up – Especially Retaliation

In the last year, there was a 9% increase in federal discrimination charges filed with the EEOC, the largest increase since the 1990s. The increase includes hikes in all types of discrimination charges. Retaliation is the second most common discrimination complaint next to race. There was an 18% increase in retaliation charges in 2007 over […]

Thursday, March 27th, 2008

9th Cir: “Covered Employees” and the Parol Evidence Rule

The 9th Circuit has held that the phrase “covered employees,” in a CBA (here, a “subscription agreement” for IBEW inside wiremen), unambiguously includes employees hired after the start of the contract but before the union began suppling workers from its hiring hall.  Thus, the trial court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence, and, the appeals court held, the […]