With a growing number of employers using personality tests to vet job applicants, it is important for management to understand the pitfalls of these tests, including the potential for costly litigation. Here, we review general guidelines to help employers benefit from the use of personality tests, while avoiding liability.
To read the full article, please
Under California law, employers must provide their employees with wage statements that contain nine specific categories of information. See Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(1)-(9). Plaintiffs in California wage and hour actions regularly and routinely have included section 226 claims with other wage allegations, claiming non-compliance by employers. And until January 1, 2013, employers have, in some circumstances, defended against section 226 claims and escaped monetary liability by arguing that employees must show some sort of injury resulting from any technical violation under the express language of section 226. The new law responds to several conflicting court opinions on the definition of “injury” by defining “suffering injury” to recover damages for wage statement violations under section 226. Specifically, an employee suffers injury if:
Continue Reading Act Now On California Labor Code Sec. 226 Amendments
Have you ever thought that being an in-house attorney will insulate you from being deposed as a witness?? Not so fast! The role of in-house counsel in the employment context has expanded, the legal landscape is changing, and, now more than ever, in-house attorneys are being deposed as fact witnesses. The increase in deposing in-house counsel stems, in part, from a failure to take the proper precautions to avoid being deposed. In-house counsel’s participation in internal investigations, layoffs, and discipline and termination decisions increases the risk of being deposed. But there are ways to minimize that risk, particularly by recognizing the different roles of in-house counsel and how acting in a business capacity can jeopardize claims of privilege protection. This is the second in a series of employment law blogs wherein Reed Smith will offer practical tips on how in-house counsel can avoid being deposed. To see Practical Tip No. 1, click here.
Continue Reading In-House Counsel: How To Avoid Being Deposed, Part 2
Have you ever thought that being an in-house attorney will insulate you from being deposed as a witness?? Not so fast! The role of in-house counsel in the employment context has expanded, the legal landscape is changing, and, now more than ever, in-house attorneys are being deposed as fact witnesses. The increase in deposing in-house counsel stems, in part, from a failure to take the proper precautions to avoid being deposed. In-house counsel’s participation in internal investigations, layoffs, and discipline and termination decisions increases the risk of being deposed. But there are ways to minimize that risk, particularly by recognizing the different roles of in-house counsel and how acting in a business capacity can jeopardize claims of privilege protection. In the next few issues of this employment law blog, Reed Smith will offer practical tips on how in-house counsel can avoid being deposed.
Continue Reading In-House Counsel: How To Avoid Being Deposed