We're not publishing here on the blog as regularly as we'd like. And there are just too many new laws to cover.
The California legislature was very busy last year. Everything from a separate retirement plan for employees without an employer 401k, to expanding the equal pay law to race and "ethnicity," to a phased in $15.00 minimum wage, to penalties for mishandling I-9 verification, and more. Long quiet, the federal government is going after employers as well, with agency decisions and regulations. Joint employer rules, paid sick leave for federal contractors, Let's not forget the many court decisions that shape the law in new and exciting ways (unrelated to class action certification or arbitration, even).
With the blog publishing less frequently, where o where can one get accurate summaries of the important employment law changes that will affect HR and business people in 2017?
Thank you for that excellent question. The answer is: SV's annual employment law update. We've been doing it for years and years. No lie: the live sessions almost always sell out. The webinar is available, but live is always better.
As of now, we have a live session in Sacramento now set for December 1. Get info here.
Our first webinar is set for January 19, 2017. Info is here.
Please tell your friends too. They'll thank you, assuming they have some interest in employment law. Otherwise, they'll probably be annoyed.
Best.
WHAT'S NEW IN EMPLOYMENT LAW? Welcome to Shaw Law Group, PC's law blog. We will focus on employment law developments, particularly in California. Nothing in this forum should be construed as legal advice, 'cause it isn't. So, please consult your lawyer or hire us! (We typically represent employers, not employees). Also - this is a public website, so communications are not privileged. Copyright Shaw Law Group, PC © 2017. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label shaw valenza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shaw valenza. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Some Recent Shaw Valenza Articles
I'll be posting our bi-weekly articles here from now on. You can access these in a number of ways in addition to on this blog. They'll automatically be posted on Twitter (@shawvalenza) and on our Facebook page here after I post them here. Just in case you want to read them 3 times. And if you read the Sacramento legal newspaper, the Daily Recorder, you can read them there as well.
Our article on the new Family Friendly Workplace ordinance, which took effect 1/1/2014, is posted here.
Here's our summary on 2014 California employment laws: Part 1 and Part 2.
And this is our recent article on subpoenas and employees' claims of medical privacy.
DGV
Our article on the new Family Friendly Workplace ordinance, which took effect 1/1/2014, is posted here.
Here's our summary on 2014 California employment laws: Part 1 and Part 2.
And this is our recent article on subpoenas and employees' claims of medical privacy.
DGV
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Happy Anniversary to Us!
Shaw Valenza just celebrated its sixth anniversary on 6/19/06. That means it's been six years since we started this blog. So, more than 500 posts after we began, we thank you once again for reading, commenting, and forwarding our posts.
Thanks and best wishes,
Greg
Thanks and best wishes,
Greg
Labels:
shaw valenza,
sv anniversary
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
SV Makes Some Law: No Section 1983 Claims Based on ADA
It's nice to blog about one of your own cases, and even better when it's a victory. So, Josephine Okwu was a Caltrans employee, who agreed to disability retirement status. She then wanted to be reinstated from disability retirement status to her former job. Denied, she was unsuccessful under civil service procedure. She then sued CalPERS and Caltrans officials in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of her civil rights.
She had to rely on Section 1983, she believed, because she could not sue her employer, Caltrans, under the Eleventh Amendment. She could not sue CalPERS, either. She could not use the ADA to sue the individuals in any court, because individuals cannot be held liable under the ADA.
The district court dismissed the case because Section 1983 cannot be used as a substitute claim for ADA claims that are not viable in federal court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed:
The case is Okwu v. McKim and the opinion is here.
She had to rely on Section 1983, she believed, because she could not sue her employer, Caltrans, under the Eleventh Amendment. She could not sue CalPERS, either. She could not use the ADA to sue the individuals in any court, because individuals cannot be held liable under the ADA.
The district court dismissed the case because Section 1983 cannot be used as a substitute claim for ADA claims that are not viable in federal court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed:
We conclude that Congress’s inclusion of a comprehensive remedial scheme in Title I of the ADA precludes § 1983 claims predicated on alleged violations of ADA Title I substantive rights. We also conclude that Okwu’s allegations of fact do not state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. We therefore affirm.
The case is Okwu v. McKim and the opinion is here.
Labels:
1983,
ada,
shaw valenza
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)