Labor and Employment Law Section

Bailey alleged that a co-worker used a racial slur against her and that when she reported the incident, the human resources manager obstructed the filing of a formal complaint, engaged in a course of intimidating conduct, and threatened Bailey that she was “going to get it.” The Court held that a co-worker’s one-time use of a racial slur may be actionable harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act if it is sufficiently severe in light of the totality of the circumstances. The Court further held that a course of conduct that effectively seeks to withdraw an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment in the workplace is actionable as a retaliation claim under FEHA. Read more

Erik Johnson is a member of Wilson Turner Kosmo, LLP’s Employment Law and Class Action practice groups. Read more

Experienced practitioners will review the top employment law cases from the past year, with an emphasis on the cases of greatest utility to employment law practitioners. Read more

This panel of experienced practitioners will cover the most important new employment laws that should be on your radar. Read more

Against the backdrop of the Federal Trade Commission’s recent announcement of a rule banning non-compete provisions, this panel of expert employment law practitioners will discuss various restrictive covenant agreements as used in California, including non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disparagement agreements. Read more

Bristol SL Holdings v. CIGNA Health & Life (9th Cir. 23-55019 5/31/24) ERISA Affirming summary judgment for defendants, the court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempted claims that a health plan administrator’s denial of reimbursements violated state law. Read more

Apply for the 2024 Labor and Employment Law Section Annual Meeting Scholarship Application! Read more

Apply for the 2024 Labor and Employment Law Section Annual Meeting Scholarship Application! Read more

Join us for the 14th Annual Advanced Wage and Hour Conference and the 40th Annual Meeting of the Labor and Employment Law Section in Costa Mesa, CA Read more

Article XVI, section 18, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution sets forth the constitutional debt limitation applicable to cities: “No . . . city . . . shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election to be held for that purpose.” The City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds to address unfunded liabilities in the City’s pension plans. The Taxpayers Association challenged the resolution, claiming it violated the constitutional debt limitation. The court held the City’s action did not trigger the debt limitation because under the resolution bonds may be issued only if they result in savings to the city. Read more