The document summarizes several recent California employment law cases:
1. In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., the California Supreme Court found that although employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their shared office, installing a hidden camera without notifying them did not violate their privacy rights given the limited nature and purpose of the surveillance.
2. In Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, the Court of Appeal held that an executive involved in a car accident after returning home from a business conference could be considered within the scope of employment, reversing summary judgment for the employer.
3. In Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino, the Court of Appeal found that disclosing confidential details
Writing Sample for Gennafer G. Garvin Workers' Comp.Gen Garvin
The document summarizes a pre-argument bench memorandum for an upcoming workers' compensation appeal. It provides background on the case, including a summary of the claimant's testimony and medical evidence presented, as well as the employer's response. It outlines the key issues on appeal as whether the Commission erred in finding the claimant's injury was not work-related and in finding she failed to provide timely notice of her injury. The memorandum analyzes the facts of the case and medical opinions.
This document is a decision from an administrative law judge regarding a whistleblower claim filed by Crisell Seguin against Northrop Grumman Corporation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The judge finds that Seguin engaged in protected activity by refusing to sign a conflicts of interest form and making allegations that a training module had incorrectly reported her status. However, Northrop Grumman claims it terminated Seguin as part of a reduction in force due to declining business. The key issues are whether Seguin's actions were protected activities and whether they contributed to her termination or if the termination was solely due to a reduction in force for business reasons.
This case involves a construction dispute between a subcontractor, Medlin & Son Construction Co., and a prime contractor, The Matthews Group, over unpaid invoices totaling $141,635. At trial, the jury found in favor of Medlin & Son and awarded $71,500 in damages. However, the trial court struck one of Medlin & Son's invoices from the record, vacated the jury's verdict, and entered summary judgment for the prime contractor. The appellate court finds that the trial court erred in striking the invoice and vacating the jury's verdict, and remands the case for a new trial on the stricken invoice.
This document provides an overview and legal analysis of employment law as it relates to HIV status. It summarizes several important court cases that established precedent, including:
1) Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies v. Sears, which affirmed Texas' strong at-will employment doctrine and found employers have no duty to perform internal investigations properly.
2) Matagorda County Hospital District v. Burwell, which also reaffirmed at-will employment and found employee manuals stating an employee "may" be dismissed for cause do not override at-will status.
3) School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, an early disability discrimination case that established a four-part test
Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.
New York is 2500 miles away and can be reached in half a minute by video call. London is 5500 miles away and can be reached in 1 minute by video call. Mumbai is 8700 miles away and can be reached in 2 to ? minutes by video call.
The latest developments in California employment law, including wrongful termination, wage and hour, breach of contract, discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and trade secrets.
This newsletter summarizes two recent court cases:
1) The Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification in a gender discrimination case against Walmart brought by 1.5 million current and former female employees.
2) A California appellate court ruled that an in-house counsel for a company could be relieved of a $4 million default judgment against the company under a provision allowing relief for attorney mistake or neglect.
Writing Sample for Gennafer G. Garvin Workers' Comp.Gen Garvin
The document summarizes a pre-argument bench memorandum for an upcoming workers' compensation appeal. It provides background on the case, including a summary of the claimant's testimony and medical evidence presented, as well as the employer's response. It outlines the key issues on appeal as whether the Commission erred in finding the claimant's injury was not work-related and in finding she failed to provide timely notice of her injury. The memorandum analyzes the facts of the case and medical opinions.
This document is a decision from an administrative law judge regarding a whistleblower claim filed by Crisell Seguin against Northrop Grumman Corporation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The judge finds that Seguin engaged in protected activity by refusing to sign a conflicts of interest form and making allegations that a training module had incorrectly reported her status. However, Northrop Grumman claims it terminated Seguin as part of a reduction in force due to declining business. The key issues are whether Seguin's actions were protected activities and whether they contributed to her termination or if the termination was solely due to a reduction in force for business reasons.
This case involves a construction dispute between a subcontractor, Medlin & Son Construction Co., and a prime contractor, The Matthews Group, over unpaid invoices totaling $141,635. At trial, the jury found in favor of Medlin & Son and awarded $71,500 in damages. However, the trial court struck one of Medlin & Son's invoices from the record, vacated the jury's verdict, and entered summary judgment for the prime contractor. The appellate court finds that the trial court erred in striking the invoice and vacating the jury's verdict, and remands the case for a new trial on the stricken invoice.
This document provides an overview and legal analysis of employment law as it relates to HIV status. It summarizes several important court cases that established precedent, including:
1) Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies v. Sears, which affirmed Texas' strong at-will employment doctrine and found employers have no duty to perform internal investigations properly.
2) Matagorda County Hospital District v. Burwell, which also reaffirmed at-will employment and found employee manuals stating an employee "may" be dismissed for cause do not override at-will status.
3) School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, an early disability discrimination case that established a four-part test
Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.
New York is 2500 miles away and can be reached in half a minute by video call. London is 5500 miles away and can be reached in 1 minute by video call. Mumbai is 8700 miles away and can be reached in 2 to ? minutes by video call.
The latest developments in California employment law, including wrongful termination, wage and hour, breach of contract, discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and trade secrets.
This newsletter summarizes two recent court cases:
1) The Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification in a gender discrimination case against Walmart brought by 1.5 million current and former female employees.
2) A California appellate court ruled that an in-house counsel for a company could be relieved of a $4 million default judgment against the company under a provision allowing relief for attorney mistake or neglect.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The document provides a summary of recent case law updates from the Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals, as well as announcements from the US District Court of Colorado regarding electronic case filing requirements. Key cases summarized include the Colorado Supreme Court interpreting the term "presently resides" in the Child Custody Act, the Court of Appeals finding that a "road rage" incident did not trigger uninsured motorist coverage, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals applying the automatic bankruptcy stay to all appeals involving a debtor. The document also lists the current CDLA directors.
This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown they have a protected interest in trade secrets and confidential information. They have also shown irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, as the defendant is allegedly using protected information to directly compete with the plaintiffs in violation of a non-compete agreement. Additionally, the plaintiffs have no adequate legal remedy and have raised fair questions that they will likely succeed on their claims of breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction.
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liab...NationalUnderwriter
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liability Insurer of Dissolved Corporate Defendant. Can an asbestos bodily injury plaintiff directly sue the liability insurer of a dissolved corporate defendant? Yes, said New York’s Appellate Division, First Department – under certain circumstances. The court’s decision came in cases under In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, et al.[1]
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 201.docxpaynetawnya
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
Suspension with pay may constitute “constructive dismissal”
Mr. Potter was the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. While the parties were negotiating a buyout of Mr. Potter’s contract, Mr. Potter commenced a sick leave. In response, the employer wrote to Mr. Potter to advise him not to return to work until he was provided further direction. In the meanwhile, Mr. Potter was suspended with pay, and his powers were delegated to someone else. Mr. Potter sued for constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Mr. Potter, finding that Mr. Potter had been constructively dismissed, “[i]n light of the indefinite duration of the suspension, of the fact that the Commission failed to act in good faith insofar as it withheld valid business reasons from Mr. Potter, and of the Commission’s concealed intention to have Mr. Potter terminated.”
2. Styles v. Alberta Investment Management Company, 2015 ABQB 621
Employers owe a duty of good faith when determining Long-Term Incentive Plan entitlements post-termination
After approximately three years of employment, Mr. Styles was terminated on a without cause basis. Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Styles was paid three months of salary.
However, during the course of his employment, Mr. Styles became eligible to participate in (and did participate in) the Defendant’s Long Term Incentive Plan. Upon termination, Mr. Styles was advised that “[a]s per policy, no further payment on Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) or Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) will be made).”
Despite the fact that the LTIP plan required Mr. Styles to be “actively employed” on the date that the monies were paid, Mr. Styles sued his former employer, citing, among other things, the fact that he had been dismissed shortly before the payout date.
Deciding in favour of Mr. Styles, the Court ordered an LTIP payout in the amount of $444,205 as a part of Mr. Styles’ severance on the basis that the employer’s strict reliance on the wording of the LTIP provision would violate the duty of good faith contractual performance that it owed to Mr. Styles (as recently established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2014 Bhasin v. Hrynew decision). In particular, the court held that “[w]hen an employment contract includes a condition for the receipt by an employee of a benefit under the contract and the employer has the discretion, pursuant to the terms of the contract, to frustrate the satisfaction of that condition, it becomes even more important for that discretion to be exercised fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily.”
When is the exercise of "discretion" required to be reasonable?3. O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods, 2015 HRTO 675
New high-water mark in general damages award for human rights violations
The Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T. were temporary foreign workers who had been employed by Presteve Foods for approximately nine ...
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA.docxjoyjonna282
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff
Against DECISION
ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
JANE JOHNSON,
PISSEDPRODUCER.COM, INC,
Defendants
------------------------------------------------------X
Haas, J.,
Defendant Jane Johnson (“Johnson”) lives in Portland, Oregon, and operates
defendant corporation, pissedproducer.com (the “website”). The website is devoted to
allowing service providers to complain about actions of consumers. According to the
website’s terms, business owners or service providers are allowed to post feedback about
consumers “that other producers should be wary of.” The website also allows aggrieved
producers to publish the names, addresses and other personal information about
consumers, along with audio and video files that relate to the transaction.
On June 12, YR-01, Brenda James (“James”) posted a story regarding plaintiff,
Douglas Smith (“Smith”) in which she accused him of, inter alia, lying about his
conversations with her, behaving antagonistically towards her and unjustifiably
complaining about her business. She also posted information about Smith’s name,
address and license plate number and a video that showed a confrontation between her
and Smith.
Johnson knowingly allowed this information to remain on her site in spite of
Smith’s protest.
2
Smith brought the present action against Johnson and the corporation that holds
the website alleging defamation, invasion of privacy for intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy for misappropriation of name and likeness and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all three defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) because plaintiff is a resident of California and defendants are residents of
Oregon and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. This is undisputed.
Johnson and the website have moved to dismiss the complaint based on FRCP
Rule 12(b)(2), alleging that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her and
under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
with respect to each of the four counts of the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, I deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to each count.
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Johnson and the
website because they operate exclusively in the state of Oregon and have insufficient
contacts with California to subject them to personal jurisdiction in the state of California.
Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, a state may exercise long arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with it s ...
5.Missouri was International Shoe Corporations principal place .docxssuser47f0be
5.
Missouri was International Shoe Corporation's principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from prospective buyers in Washington. The state of Washington assessed the company for contributions to a state unemployment fund. The state served the assessment on one of International Shoe Corporation's sales representatives in Washington and sent a copy by registered mail to the company's Missouri headquarters. International Shoe's representative challenged the assessment on numerous grounds, arguing that the state had not properly served the corporation. Is the corporation's defense valid? Why or why not? [
International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310 (1945).]
6.
The Robinsons, residents of New York, bought a new Audi car from Seaway Volkswagen Corp., a retailer incorporated in New York and with its principal place of business there. World-Wide Volkswagen, a company incorporated in New York and doing business in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, distributed the car to Seaway. Neither Seaway nor World-Wide did business in Oklahoma, and neither company shipped cars there. The Robinsons were driving through Oklahoma when another vehicle struck their Audi in the rear. The gas tank of the Audi exploded, injuring several members of the family. The Robinsons brought a product liability suit against the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the car in an Oklahoma state court. Seaway and World-Wide argued that the Oklahoma state court did not have
in personam
jurisdiction over them. After the state's trial court and supreme court held that the state did have
in personam
jurisdiction over Seaway and World-Wide, the companies appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think the Court decided in this case? Why? [
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286 (1980).]
8.
Le Cabaret 481, Inc., an adult entertainment corporation, wanted to open a strip club in the city of Kingston. Kingston, however, passed an ordinance prohibiting adult businesses from operating within 300 feet of any church, school, nursery, public park, or residential property. Le Cabaret 481 filed a suit against the city, arguing that the ordinance left no feasible locations in the city for an adult business and thus violated the company's First Amendment right to free expression. The city, on the other hand, argued that Le Cabaret 481 did not present a ripe case to the court because the company had not applied for a building permit for its adult business. The company argued that it could not find a location for which it could apply for a permit. Do you think Le Cabaret 481 satisfied the ripeness requirement for its suit against the city? Why or why not? [
Le Cabaret 481, Inc. v. Municipality of Kingston,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 706 (2005).]
10.
The plaintiffs, parents of underage children, sued the Advanced Brands and Importing Co., a.
FT Week 7 Crital Thinking in the Legal EnvironmentFelicia Thomas
The document provides an analysis of the Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation and Pearson v. Custom Cleaners cases. It summarizes the key facts and legal issues of each case. In Liebeck, the plaintiff was severely burned by McDonald's coffee and sued for product liability. In Pearson, the plaintiff sued a dry cleaners for $54 million over lost pants. The document analyzes the applicable laws in each case and whether the court decisions were appropriate. It also discusses the ethical issues raised, such as punitive damages and economic theories of harm.
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elabora.docxrusselldayna
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain. I choose p>81
Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House, p. 81)
Read about arbitration law in Chapter 4 and Case 4-3 in your textbook, and do some online research on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then discuss the following:
What is the EEOC’s role in regard to business? Does the court say that the EEOC trumps the arbitration contract between the employee and the employer? If so, why? What are the pros and cons of arbitration agreements? Do you think arbitration agreements between big companies and low wage earners who are uninformed about the law are truly fair? If you have any experiences at work with discrimination policies or EEOC trainings, share those experiences.
Dogs and Dream Therapists (Hagen v. Field, pp. 65 (question 7), and Jones v. Williams, p. 43 (question 9)
P65
The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the two breeding cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas.
Read both cases and discuss legal issues for the court, focusing on in each. Summarize what factors the court looks at in determining where a case can be brought. What was the decision in each case, and do you think the decision was correct? Why or why not?
ASE
4-3 p81
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
All employees of Waffle House had to sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After Eric Baker suffered a seizure and was fired by Waffle House, he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) under Title VII. The EEOC subsequently filed an enforcement suit, to which Baker was not a party, alleging that Waffle House's employment practices, including Baker's discharge “because of his disability,” violated the ADA. The EEOC sought the following: an injunction to “eradicate the effects of [Waffle House's] past and present unlawful employment practices”; specific relief designed to make Baker whole, including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages; and punitive damages.
Waffle House sought to dismiss the EEOC's suit and compel arbitration because of the binding arbitration clause signed by Baker. The District Court denied Waffle House's motion to dismiss. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the arbitration agreement between Baker and Waffle House did not foreclose ...
The court affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the special employer doctrine applied. Under the special employer doctrine, an employee can be considered simultaneously employed by both their primary employer and any other employer to whom their services were loaned, if three conditions are met: (1) an express or implied contract with the special employer; (2) the work being done is essentially for the special employer; and (3) the special employer has the right to control the work details. The court determined all three conditions were met, making the defendant the plaintiff's special employer and entitling the defendant to workers' compensation immunity.
Paul Windust is a partner at Berding | Weil LLP specializing in community association law, construction defect, real estate, and business litigation. He has over 25 years of legal experience representing homeowners associations, defending directors and management companies, and litigating construction defect claims, CC&R violations, and governance disputes. Some of his significant cases include settling a $50,000 per unit construction defect claim and obtaining a $165,000 attorney fee award for an association after a 3-week trial.
The memorandum discusses the principle of quantum meruit as it applies to an attorney's right to compensation after being discharged from a case. McDonald and Fontana represented Ida Ipana in a personal injury suit against Shipley Supermarket but were subsequently discharged. Quantum meruit allows an attorney to recover the reasonable value of services rendered to prevent unjust enrichment. Relevant Illinois statutes and case law establish that McDonald and Fontana would likely be entitled to a percentage of any recovery or could place a lien on the case until their fees are resolved.
Lawweb.in uk supreme court judgment on vicarious liability of employer for to...Law Web
UK Supreme court Judgment on vicarious liability of employer for tortious liability of employee http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/uk-supreme-court-judgment-on-vicarious.html
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Wage & Hour Case StudiesBest Best and Krieger LLP
This document summarizes three key labor and employment law cases from 2013:
1) Brinker v. Superior Court clarified that employers must provide meal periods but are not required to ensure employees do not work during these periods. Employers must also provide specified rest periods.
2) Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill reaffirmed the holding in Brinker that employers are obligated to provide, not police, meal breaks.
3) Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection ruled that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded for claims involving alleged rest or meal period violations.
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC..docxjasoninnes20
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 164 F.3D 1056 (7TH CIR. 1999).
[Sacred Heart St. Mary’s Hospitals operate a hospital in rural Tomahawk, Wisconsin. The hospital’s ambulance department has two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in-house during the day, but after hours the hospital relies on standby crews. Two EMTs serve as the “first-out” crew and two more as the “second- out” crew. An EMT on first-out status must arrive at the hospital within seven minutes of receiving a page. Members of the first-out crew receive $2.25 per hour of on-call time, plus pay at time-and-a-half for all hours devoted to handling a medical emergency. The hospital credits them with at least two hours’ work for each emergency call even if they are back home in less time, as they usually are. Garret Dinges and Christine Foster asked for and were assigned first- out status. Now, in this suit, they contend that the rewards should have been even greater than those the hospital promised and delivered—that the entire 14 to 16-hour on-call period should be treated as working time, so it would produce 21 to 24 hours’ wages even if they did not receive an emergency call. Both Dinges and Foster live within seven minutes’ drive from the hospital; indeed, the entire city of Tomahawk is within the seven-minute radius, so they can and do pass the on-call time at home or at other activities in or near the city. Mr. Dinges and Ms. Foster cannot travel outside Tomahawk. Each has spent holidays at home rather than with relatives and has been unable to attend weddings, family reunions, parties, and other events. While on call, Dinges cannot assist in operation of the family business, located 20 miles from the hospital. Hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and other recreational activities are restricted to what is possible near the hospital.
The hospital responds by emphasizing what EMTs can do during on-call hours: cook; eat; sleep; read; exercise; watch TV and movies; do housework; and care for pets, family, and loved ones at home. Many things in the vicinity of home also are compatible with first-out status. For exam- ple, Foster watches her children participate in sports, attends dance recitals, and goes to restaurants and parties. From a judgment for the hospital, the plain- tiffs appealed.]
EASTERBROOK, C. J....
Working more than 40 hours per week draws pre- mium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 207. Should hours spent “on call” be treated as work? According to the Supreme Court, the answer depends on whether one has been “engaged to wait” or is “waiting to be engaged.” Compare Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944), with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). That evocative distinction rarely decides a concrete case; on-call time readily can be characterized either way. For most purposes it is best to ask what the employee can do during on-call periods. Can the time be devoted to the or ...
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC..docxmoggdede
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 164 F.3D 1056 (7TH CIR. 1999).
[Sacred Heart St. Mary’s Hospitals operate a hospital in rural Tomahawk, Wisconsin. The hospital’s ambulance department has two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in-house during the day, but after hours the hospital relies on standby crews. Two EMTs serve as the “first-out” crew and two more as the “second- out” crew. An EMT on first-out status must arrive at the hospital within seven minutes of receiving a page. Members of the first-out crew receive $2.25 per hour of on-call time, plus pay at time-and-a-half for all hours devoted to handling a medical emergency. The hospital credits them with at least two hours’ work for each emergency call even if they are back home in less time, as they usually are. Garret Dinges and Christine Foster asked for and were assigned first- out status. Now, in this suit, they contend that the rewards should have been even greater than those the hospital promised and delivered—that the entire 14 to 16-hour on-call period should be treated as working time, so it would produce 21 to 24 hours’ wages even if they did not receive an emergency call. Both Dinges and Foster live within seven minutes’ drive from the hospital; indeed, the entire city of Tomahawk is within the seven-minute radius, so they can and do pass the on-call time at home or at other activities in or near the city. Mr. Dinges and Ms. Foster cannot travel outside Tomahawk. Each has spent holidays at home rather than with relatives and has been unable to attend weddings, family reunions, parties, and other events. While on call, Dinges cannot assist in operation of the family business, located 20 miles from the hospital. Hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and other recreational activities are restricted to what is possible near the hospital.
The hospital responds by emphasizing what EMTs can do during on-call hours: cook; eat; sleep; read; exercise; watch TV and movies; do housework; and care for pets, family, and loved ones at home. Many things in the vicinity of home also are compatible with first-out status. For exam- ple, Foster watches her children participate in sports, attends dance recitals, and goes to restaurants and parties. From a judgment for the hospital, the plain- tiffs appealed.]
EASTERBROOK, C. J....
Working more than 40 hours per week draws pre- mium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 207. Should hours spent “on call” be treated as work? According to the Supreme Court, the answer depends on whether one has been “engaged to wait” or is “waiting to be engaged.” Compare Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944), with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). That evocative distinction rarely decides a concrete case; on-call time readily can be characterized either way. For most purposes it is best to ask what the employee can do during on-call periods. Can the time be devoted to the or.
Trial Strategy: The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...NationalUnderwriter
Can an insurance company seek a court order to protect evidence before it is sued by a policyholder? A carrier may want to do this to protect its interests in any coverage case that ultimately is filed. Several decisions by federal district courts in Louisiana have explored this topic – and have reached different conclusions.
Monitoring and Managing Anomaly Detection on OpenShift.pdfTosin Akinosho
Monitoring and Managing Anomaly Detection on OpenShift
Overview
Dive into the world of anomaly detection on edge devices with our comprehensive hands-on tutorial. This SlideShare presentation will guide you through the entire process, from data collection and model training to edge deployment and real-time monitoring. Perfect for those looking to implement robust anomaly detection systems on resource-constrained IoT/edge devices.
Key Topics Covered
1. Introduction to Anomaly Detection
- Understand the fundamentals of anomaly detection and its importance in identifying unusual behavior or failures in systems.
2. Understanding Edge (IoT)
- Learn about edge computing and IoT, and how they enable real-time data processing and decision-making at the source.
3. What is ArgoCD?
- Discover ArgoCD, a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes, and its role in deploying applications on edge devices.
4. Deployment Using ArgoCD for Edge Devices
- Step-by-step guide on deploying anomaly detection models on edge devices using ArgoCD.
5. Introduction to Apache Kafka and S3
- Explore Apache Kafka for real-time data streaming and Amazon S3 for scalable storage solutions.
6. Viewing Kafka Messages in the Data Lake
- Learn how to view and analyze Kafka messages stored in a data lake for better insights.
7. What is Prometheus?
- Get to know Prometheus, an open-source monitoring and alerting toolkit, and its application in monitoring edge devices.
8. Monitoring Application Metrics with Prometheus
- Detailed instructions on setting up Prometheus to monitor the performance and health of your anomaly detection system.
9. What is Camel K?
- Introduction to Camel K, a lightweight integration framework built on Apache Camel, designed for Kubernetes.
10. Configuring Camel K Integrations for Data Pipelines
- Learn how to configure Camel K for seamless data pipeline integrations in your anomaly detection workflow.
11. What is a Jupyter Notebook?
- Overview of Jupyter Notebooks, an open-source web application for creating and sharing documents with live code, equations, visualizations, and narrative text.
12. Jupyter Notebooks with Code Examples
- Hands-on examples and code snippets in Jupyter Notebooks to help you implement and test anomaly detection models.
Cosa hanno in comune un mattoncino Lego e la backdoor XZ?Speck&Tech
ABSTRACT: A prima vista, un mattoncino Lego e la backdoor XZ potrebbero avere in comune il fatto di essere entrambi blocchi di costruzione, o dipendenze di progetti creativi e software. La realtà è che un mattoncino Lego e il caso della backdoor XZ hanno molto di più di tutto ciò in comune.
Partecipate alla presentazione per immergervi in una storia di interoperabilità, standard e formati aperti, per poi discutere del ruolo importante che i contributori hanno in una comunità open source sostenibile.
BIO: Sostenitrice del software libero e dei formati standard e aperti. È stata un membro attivo dei progetti Fedora e openSUSE e ha co-fondato l'Associazione LibreItalia dove è stata coinvolta in diversi eventi, migrazioni e formazione relativi a LibreOffice. In precedenza ha lavorato a migrazioni e corsi di formazione su LibreOffice per diverse amministrazioni pubbliche e privati. Da gennaio 2020 lavora in SUSE come Software Release Engineer per Uyuni e SUSE Manager e quando non segue la sua passione per i computer e per Geeko coltiva la sua curiosità per l'astronomia (da cui deriva il suo nickname deneb_alpha).
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The document provides a summary of recent case law updates from the Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals, as well as announcements from the US District Court of Colorado regarding electronic case filing requirements. Key cases summarized include the Colorado Supreme Court interpreting the term "presently resides" in the Child Custody Act, the Court of Appeals finding that a "road rage" incident did not trigger uninsured motorist coverage, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals applying the automatic bankruptcy stay to all appeals involving a debtor. The document also lists the current CDLA directors.
This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown they have a protected interest in trade secrets and confidential information. They have also shown irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, as the defendant is allegedly using protected information to directly compete with the plaintiffs in violation of a non-compete agreement. Additionally, the plaintiffs have no adequate legal remedy and have raised fair questions that they will likely succeed on their claims of breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction.
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liab...NationalUnderwriter
New York Appeals Court Sustains Asbestos Plaintiff's Direct Suit Against Liability Insurer of Dissolved Corporate Defendant. Can an asbestos bodily injury plaintiff directly sue the liability insurer of a dissolved corporate defendant? Yes, said New York’s Appellate Division, First Department – under certain circumstances. The court’s decision came in cases under In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, et al.[1]
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 201.docxpaynetawnya
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
Suspension with pay may constitute “constructive dismissal”
Mr. Potter was the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. While the parties were negotiating a buyout of Mr. Potter’s contract, Mr. Potter commenced a sick leave. In response, the employer wrote to Mr. Potter to advise him not to return to work until he was provided further direction. In the meanwhile, Mr. Potter was suspended with pay, and his powers were delegated to someone else. Mr. Potter sued for constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Mr. Potter, finding that Mr. Potter had been constructively dismissed, “[i]n light of the indefinite duration of the suspension, of the fact that the Commission failed to act in good faith insofar as it withheld valid business reasons from Mr. Potter, and of the Commission’s concealed intention to have Mr. Potter terminated.”
2. Styles v. Alberta Investment Management Company, 2015 ABQB 621
Employers owe a duty of good faith when determining Long-Term Incentive Plan entitlements post-termination
After approximately three years of employment, Mr. Styles was terminated on a without cause basis. Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Styles was paid three months of salary.
However, during the course of his employment, Mr. Styles became eligible to participate in (and did participate in) the Defendant’s Long Term Incentive Plan. Upon termination, Mr. Styles was advised that “[a]s per policy, no further payment on Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) or Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) will be made).”
Despite the fact that the LTIP plan required Mr. Styles to be “actively employed” on the date that the monies were paid, Mr. Styles sued his former employer, citing, among other things, the fact that he had been dismissed shortly before the payout date.
Deciding in favour of Mr. Styles, the Court ordered an LTIP payout in the amount of $444,205 as a part of Mr. Styles’ severance on the basis that the employer’s strict reliance on the wording of the LTIP provision would violate the duty of good faith contractual performance that it owed to Mr. Styles (as recently established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2014 Bhasin v. Hrynew decision). In particular, the court held that “[w]hen an employment contract includes a condition for the receipt by an employee of a benefit under the contract and the employer has the discretion, pursuant to the terms of the contract, to frustrate the satisfaction of that condition, it becomes even more important for that discretion to be exercised fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily.”
When is the exercise of "discretion" required to be reasonable?3. O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods, 2015 HRTO 675
New high-water mark in general damages award for human rights violations
The Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T. were temporary foreign workers who had been employed by Presteve Foods for approximately nine ...
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA.docxjoyjonna282
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff
Against DECISION
ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
JANE JOHNSON,
PISSEDPRODUCER.COM, INC,
Defendants
------------------------------------------------------X
Haas, J.,
Defendant Jane Johnson (“Johnson”) lives in Portland, Oregon, and operates
defendant corporation, pissedproducer.com (the “website”). The website is devoted to
allowing service providers to complain about actions of consumers. According to the
website’s terms, business owners or service providers are allowed to post feedback about
consumers “that other producers should be wary of.” The website also allows aggrieved
producers to publish the names, addresses and other personal information about
consumers, along with audio and video files that relate to the transaction.
On June 12, YR-01, Brenda James (“James”) posted a story regarding plaintiff,
Douglas Smith (“Smith”) in which she accused him of, inter alia, lying about his
conversations with her, behaving antagonistically towards her and unjustifiably
complaining about her business. She also posted information about Smith’s name,
address and license plate number and a video that showed a confrontation between her
and Smith.
Johnson knowingly allowed this information to remain on her site in spite of
Smith’s protest.
2
Smith brought the present action against Johnson and the corporation that holds
the website alleging defamation, invasion of privacy for intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy for misappropriation of name and likeness and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all three defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) because plaintiff is a resident of California and defendants are residents of
Oregon and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. This is undisputed.
Johnson and the website have moved to dismiss the complaint based on FRCP
Rule 12(b)(2), alleging that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her and
under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
with respect to each of the four counts of the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, I deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to each count.
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Johnson and the
website because they operate exclusively in the state of Oregon and have insufficient
contacts with California to subject them to personal jurisdiction in the state of California.
Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, a state may exercise long arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with it s ...
5.Missouri was International Shoe Corporations principal place .docxssuser47f0be
5.
Missouri was International Shoe Corporation's principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from prospective buyers in Washington. The state of Washington assessed the company for contributions to a state unemployment fund. The state served the assessment on one of International Shoe Corporation's sales representatives in Washington and sent a copy by registered mail to the company's Missouri headquarters. International Shoe's representative challenged the assessment on numerous grounds, arguing that the state had not properly served the corporation. Is the corporation's defense valid? Why or why not? [
International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310 (1945).]
6.
The Robinsons, residents of New York, bought a new Audi car from Seaway Volkswagen Corp., a retailer incorporated in New York and with its principal place of business there. World-Wide Volkswagen, a company incorporated in New York and doing business in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, distributed the car to Seaway. Neither Seaway nor World-Wide did business in Oklahoma, and neither company shipped cars there. The Robinsons were driving through Oklahoma when another vehicle struck their Audi in the rear. The gas tank of the Audi exploded, injuring several members of the family. The Robinsons brought a product liability suit against the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the car in an Oklahoma state court. Seaway and World-Wide argued that the Oklahoma state court did not have
in personam
jurisdiction over them. After the state's trial court and supreme court held that the state did have
in personam
jurisdiction over Seaway and World-Wide, the companies appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think the Court decided in this case? Why? [
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286 (1980).]
8.
Le Cabaret 481, Inc., an adult entertainment corporation, wanted to open a strip club in the city of Kingston. Kingston, however, passed an ordinance prohibiting adult businesses from operating within 300 feet of any church, school, nursery, public park, or residential property. Le Cabaret 481 filed a suit against the city, arguing that the ordinance left no feasible locations in the city for an adult business and thus violated the company's First Amendment right to free expression. The city, on the other hand, argued that Le Cabaret 481 did not present a ripe case to the court because the company had not applied for a building permit for its adult business. The company argued that it could not find a location for which it could apply for a permit. Do you think Le Cabaret 481 satisfied the ripeness requirement for its suit against the city? Why or why not? [
Le Cabaret 481, Inc. v. Municipality of Kingston,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 706 (2005).]
10.
The plaintiffs, parents of underage children, sued the Advanced Brands and Importing Co., a.
FT Week 7 Crital Thinking in the Legal EnvironmentFelicia Thomas
The document provides an analysis of the Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation and Pearson v. Custom Cleaners cases. It summarizes the key facts and legal issues of each case. In Liebeck, the plaintiff was severely burned by McDonald's coffee and sued for product liability. In Pearson, the plaintiff sued a dry cleaners for $54 million over lost pants. The document analyzes the applicable laws in each case and whether the court decisions were appropriate. It also discusses the ethical issues raised, such as punitive damages and economic theories of harm.
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elabora.docxrusselldayna
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain. I choose p>81
Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House, p. 81)
Read about arbitration law in Chapter 4 and Case 4-3 in your textbook, and do some online research on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then discuss the following:
What is the EEOC’s role in regard to business? Does the court say that the EEOC trumps the arbitration contract between the employee and the employer? If so, why? What are the pros and cons of arbitration agreements? Do you think arbitration agreements between big companies and low wage earners who are uninformed about the law are truly fair? If you have any experiences at work with discrimination policies or EEOC trainings, share those experiences.
Dogs and Dream Therapists (Hagen v. Field, pp. 65 (question 7), and Jones v. Williams, p. 43 (question 9)
P65
The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the two breeding cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas.
Read both cases and discuss legal issues for the court, focusing on in each. Summarize what factors the court looks at in determining where a case can be brought. What was the decision in each case, and do you think the decision was correct? Why or why not?
ASE
4-3 p81
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
All employees of Waffle House had to sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After Eric Baker suffered a seizure and was fired by Waffle House, he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) under Title VII. The EEOC subsequently filed an enforcement suit, to which Baker was not a party, alleging that Waffle House's employment practices, including Baker's discharge “because of his disability,” violated the ADA. The EEOC sought the following: an injunction to “eradicate the effects of [Waffle House's] past and present unlawful employment practices”; specific relief designed to make Baker whole, including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages; and punitive damages.
Waffle House sought to dismiss the EEOC's suit and compel arbitration because of the binding arbitration clause signed by Baker. The District Court denied Waffle House's motion to dismiss. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the arbitration agreement between Baker and Waffle House did not foreclose ...
The court affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the special employer doctrine applied. Under the special employer doctrine, an employee can be considered simultaneously employed by both their primary employer and any other employer to whom their services were loaned, if three conditions are met: (1) an express or implied contract with the special employer; (2) the work being done is essentially for the special employer; and (3) the special employer has the right to control the work details. The court determined all three conditions were met, making the defendant the plaintiff's special employer and entitling the defendant to workers' compensation immunity.
Paul Windust is a partner at Berding | Weil LLP specializing in community association law, construction defect, real estate, and business litigation. He has over 25 years of legal experience representing homeowners associations, defending directors and management companies, and litigating construction defect claims, CC&R violations, and governance disputes. Some of his significant cases include settling a $50,000 per unit construction defect claim and obtaining a $165,000 attorney fee award for an association after a 3-week trial.
The memorandum discusses the principle of quantum meruit as it applies to an attorney's right to compensation after being discharged from a case. McDonald and Fontana represented Ida Ipana in a personal injury suit against Shipley Supermarket but were subsequently discharged. Quantum meruit allows an attorney to recover the reasonable value of services rendered to prevent unjust enrichment. Relevant Illinois statutes and case law establish that McDonald and Fontana would likely be entitled to a percentage of any recovery or could place a lien on the case until their fees are resolved.
Lawweb.in uk supreme court judgment on vicarious liability of employer for to...Law Web
UK Supreme court Judgment on vicarious liability of employer for tortious liability of employee http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/uk-supreme-court-judgment-on-vicarious.html
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Wage & Hour Case StudiesBest Best and Krieger LLP
This document summarizes three key labor and employment law cases from 2013:
1) Brinker v. Superior Court clarified that employers must provide meal periods but are not required to ensure employees do not work during these periods. Employers must also provide specified rest periods.
2) Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill reaffirmed the holding in Brinker that employers are obligated to provide, not police, meal breaks.
3) Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection ruled that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded for claims involving alleged rest or meal period violations.
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC..docxjasoninnes20
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 164 F.3D 1056 (7TH CIR. 1999).
[Sacred Heart St. Mary’s Hospitals operate a hospital in rural Tomahawk, Wisconsin. The hospital’s ambulance department has two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in-house during the day, but after hours the hospital relies on standby crews. Two EMTs serve as the “first-out” crew and two more as the “second- out” crew. An EMT on first-out status must arrive at the hospital within seven minutes of receiving a page. Members of the first-out crew receive $2.25 per hour of on-call time, plus pay at time-and-a-half for all hours devoted to handling a medical emergency. The hospital credits them with at least two hours’ work for each emergency call even if they are back home in less time, as they usually are. Garret Dinges and Christine Foster asked for and were assigned first- out status. Now, in this suit, they contend that the rewards should have been even greater than those the hospital promised and delivered—that the entire 14 to 16-hour on-call period should be treated as working time, so it would produce 21 to 24 hours’ wages even if they did not receive an emergency call. Both Dinges and Foster live within seven minutes’ drive from the hospital; indeed, the entire city of Tomahawk is within the seven-minute radius, so they can and do pass the on-call time at home or at other activities in or near the city. Mr. Dinges and Ms. Foster cannot travel outside Tomahawk. Each has spent holidays at home rather than with relatives and has been unable to attend weddings, family reunions, parties, and other events. While on call, Dinges cannot assist in operation of the family business, located 20 miles from the hospital. Hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and other recreational activities are restricted to what is possible near the hospital.
The hospital responds by emphasizing what EMTs can do during on-call hours: cook; eat; sleep; read; exercise; watch TV and movies; do housework; and care for pets, family, and loved ones at home. Many things in the vicinity of home also are compatible with first-out status. For exam- ple, Foster watches her children participate in sports, attends dance recitals, and goes to restaurants and parties. From a judgment for the hospital, the plain- tiffs appealed.]
EASTERBROOK, C. J....
Working more than 40 hours per week draws pre- mium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 207. Should hours spent “on call” be treated as work? According to the Supreme Court, the answer depends on whether one has been “engaged to wait” or is “waiting to be engaged.” Compare Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944), with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). That evocative distinction rarely decides a concrete case; on-call time readily can be characterized either way. For most purposes it is best to ask what the employee can do during on-call periods. Can the time be devoted to the or ...
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC..docxmoggdede
CASE STUDY 18.3 DINGES V. SACRED HEART ST. MARY’S HOSPITALS, INC.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 164 F.3D 1056 (7TH CIR. 1999).
[Sacred Heart St. Mary’s Hospitals operate a hospital in rural Tomahawk, Wisconsin. The hospital’s ambulance department has two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in-house during the day, but after hours the hospital relies on standby crews. Two EMTs serve as the “first-out” crew and two more as the “second- out” crew. An EMT on first-out status must arrive at the hospital within seven minutes of receiving a page. Members of the first-out crew receive $2.25 per hour of on-call time, plus pay at time-and-a-half for all hours devoted to handling a medical emergency. The hospital credits them with at least two hours’ work for each emergency call even if they are back home in less time, as they usually are. Garret Dinges and Christine Foster asked for and were assigned first- out status. Now, in this suit, they contend that the rewards should have been even greater than those the hospital promised and delivered—that the entire 14 to 16-hour on-call period should be treated as working time, so it would produce 21 to 24 hours’ wages even if they did not receive an emergency call. Both Dinges and Foster live within seven minutes’ drive from the hospital; indeed, the entire city of Tomahawk is within the seven-minute radius, so they can and do pass the on-call time at home or at other activities in or near the city. Mr. Dinges and Ms. Foster cannot travel outside Tomahawk. Each has spent holidays at home rather than with relatives and has been unable to attend weddings, family reunions, parties, and other events. While on call, Dinges cannot assist in operation of the family business, located 20 miles from the hospital. Hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and other recreational activities are restricted to what is possible near the hospital.
The hospital responds by emphasizing what EMTs can do during on-call hours: cook; eat; sleep; read; exercise; watch TV and movies; do housework; and care for pets, family, and loved ones at home. Many things in the vicinity of home also are compatible with first-out status. For exam- ple, Foster watches her children participate in sports, attends dance recitals, and goes to restaurants and parties. From a judgment for the hospital, the plain- tiffs appealed.]
EASTERBROOK, C. J....
Working more than 40 hours per week draws pre- mium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 207. Should hours spent “on call” be treated as work? According to the Supreme Court, the answer depends on whether one has been “engaged to wait” or is “waiting to be engaged.” Compare Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944), with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). That evocative distinction rarely decides a concrete case; on-call time readily can be characterized either way. For most purposes it is best to ask what the employee can do during on-call periods. Can the time be devoted to the or.
Trial Strategy: The Struggle over Perpetuating Testimony Before Litigation B...NationalUnderwriter
Can an insurance company seek a court order to protect evidence before it is sued by a policyholder? A carrier may want to do this to protect its interests in any coverage case that ultimately is filed. Several decisions by federal district courts in Louisiana have explored this topic – and have reached different conclusions.
Monitoring and Managing Anomaly Detection on OpenShift.pdfTosin Akinosho
Monitoring and Managing Anomaly Detection on OpenShift
Overview
Dive into the world of anomaly detection on edge devices with our comprehensive hands-on tutorial. This SlideShare presentation will guide you through the entire process, from data collection and model training to edge deployment and real-time monitoring. Perfect for those looking to implement robust anomaly detection systems on resource-constrained IoT/edge devices.
Key Topics Covered
1. Introduction to Anomaly Detection
- Understand the fundamentals of anomaly detection and its importance in identifying unusual behavior or failures in systems.
2. Understanding Edge (IoT)
- Learn about edge computing and IoT, and how they enable real-time data processing and decision-making at the source.
3. What is ArgoCD?
- Discover ArgoCD, a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes, and its role in deploying applications on edge devices.
4. Deployment Using ArgoCD for Edge Devices
- Step-by-step guide on deploying anomaly detection models on edge devices using ArgoCD.
5. Introduction to Apache Kafka and S3
- Explore Apache Kafka for real-time data streaming and Amazon S3 for scalable storage solutions.
6. Viewing Kafka Messages in the Data Lake
- Learn how to view and analyze Kafka messages stored in a data lake for better insights.
7. What is Prometheus?
- Get to know Prometheus, an open-source monitoring and alerting toolkit, and its application in monitoring edge devices.
8. Monitoring Application Metrics with Prometheus
- Detailed instructions on setting up Prometheus to monitor the performance and health of your anomaly detection system.
9. What is Camel K?
- Introduction to Camel K, a lightweight integration framework built on Apache Camel, designed for Kubernetes.
10. Configuring Camel K Integrations for Data Pipelines
- Learn how to configure Camel K for seamless data pipeline integrations in your anomaly detection workflow.
11. What is a Jupyter Notebook?
- Overview of Jupyter Notebooks, an open-source web application for creating and sharing documents with live code, equations, visualizations, and narrative text.
12. Jupyter Notebooks with Code Examples
- Hands-on examples and code snippets in Jupyter Notebooks to help you implement and test anomaly detection models.
Cosa hanno in comune un mattoncino Lego e la backdoor XZ?Speck&Tech
ABSTRACT: A prima vista, un mattoncino Lego e la backdoor XZ potrebbero avere in comune il fatto di essere entrambi blocchi di costruzione, o dipendenze di progetti creativi e software. La realtà è che un mattoncino Lego e il caso della backdoor XZ hanno molto di più di tutto ciò in comune.
Partecipate alla presentazione per immergervi in una storia di interoperabilità, standard e formati aperti, per poi discutere del ruolo importante che i contributori hanno in una comunità open source sostenibile.
BIO: Sostenitrice del software libero e dei formati standard e aperti. È stata un membro attivo dei progetti Fedora e openSUSE e ha co-fondato l'Associazione LibreItalia dove è stata coinvolta in diversi eventi, migrazioni e formazione relativi a LibreOffice. In precedenza ha lavorato a migrazioni e corsi di formazione su LibreOffice per diverse amministrazioni pubbliche e privati. Da gennaio 2020 lavora in SUSE come Software Release Engineer per Uyuni e SUSE Manager e quando non segue la sua passione per i computer e per Geeko coltiva la sua curiosità per l'astronomia (da cui deriva il suo nickname deneb_alpha).
Let's Integrate MuleSoft RPA, COMPOSER, APM with AWS IDP along with Slackshyamraj55
Discover the seamless integration of RPA (Robotic Process Automation), COMPOSER, and APM with AWS IDP enhanced with Slack notifications. Explore how these technologies converge to streamline workflows, optimize performance, and ensure secure access, all while leveraging the power of AWS IDP and real-time communication via Slack notifications.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technologies, XML continues to play a vital role in structuring, storing, and transporting data across diverse systems. The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present new methodologies for enhancing XML development workflows, introducing efficiency, automation, and intelligent capabilities. This presentation will outline the scope and perspective of utilizing AI in XML development. The potential benefits and the possible pitfalls will be highlighted, providing a balanced view of the subject.
We will explore the capabilities of AI in understanding XML markup languages and autonomously creating structured XML content. Additionally, we will examine the capacity of AI to enrich plain text with appropriate XML markup. Practical examples and methodological guidelines will be provided to elucidate how AI can be effectively prompted to interpret and generate accurate XML markup.
Further emphasis will be placed on the role of AI in developing XSLT, or schemas such as XSD and Schematron. We will address the techniques and strategies adopted to create prompts for generating code, explaining code, or refactoring the code, and the results achieved.
The discussion will extend to how AI can be used to transform XML content. In particular, the focus will be on the use of AI XPath extension functions in XSLT, Schematron, Schematron Quick Fixes, or for XML content refactoring.
The presentation aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of AI usage in XML development, providing attendees with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you’re at the early stages of adopting AI or considering integrating it in advanced XML development, this presentation will cover all levels of expertise.
By highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of integrating AI with XML development tools and languages, the presentation seeks to inspire thoughtful conversation around the future of XML development. We’ll not only delve into the technical aspects of AI-powered XML development but also discuss practical implications and possible future directions.
Best 20 SEO Techniques To Improve Website Visibility In SERPPixlogix Infotech
Boost your website's visibility with proven SEO techniques! Our latest blog dives into essential strategies to enhance your online presence, increase traffic, and rank higher on search engines. From keyword optimization to quality content creation, learn how to make your site stand out in the crowded digital landscape. Discover actionable tips and expert insights to elevate your SEO game.
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
Have you ever been confused by the myriad of choices offered by AWS for hosting a website or an API?
Lambda, Elastic Beanstalk, Lightsail, Amplify, S3 (and more!) can each host websites + APIs. But which one should we choose?
Which one is cheapest? Which one is fastest? Which one will scale to meet our needs?
Join me in this session as we dive into each AWS hosting service to determine which one is best for your scenario and explain why!
Full-RAG: A modern architecture for hyper-personalizationZilliz
Mike Del Balso, CEO & Co-Founder at Tecton, presents "Full RAG," a novel approach to AI recommendation systems, aiming to push beyond the limitations of traditional models through a deep integration of contextual insights and real-time data, leveraging the Retrieval-Augmented Generation architecture. This talk will outline Full RAG's potential to significantly enhance personalization, address engineering challenges such as data management and model training, and introduce data enrichment with reranking as a key solution. Attendees will gain crucial insights into the importance of hyperpersonalization in AI, the capabilities of Full RAG for advanced personalization, and strategies for managing complex data integrations for deploying cutting-edge AI solutions.
In his public lecture, Christian Timmerer provides insights into the fascinating history of video streaming, starting from its humble beginnings before YouTube to the groundbreaking technologies that now dominate platforms like Netflix and ORF ON. Timmerer also presents provocative contributions of his own that have significantly influenced the industry. He concludes by looking at future challenges and invites the audience to join in a discussion.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 6DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 6. In this session, we will cover Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI webinar offers an in-depth exploration of leveraging cutting-edge technologies for test automation within the UiPath platform. Attendees will delve into the integration of generative AI, a test automation solution, with Open AI advanced natural language processing capabilities.
Throughout the session, participants will discover how this synergy empowers testers to automate repetitive tasks, enhance testing accuracy, and expedite the software testing life cycle. Topics covered include the seamless integration process, practical use cases, and the benefits of harnessing AI-driven automation for UiPath testing initiatives. By attending this webinar, testers, and automation professionals can gain valuable insights into harnessing the power of AI to optimize their test automation workflows within the UiPath ecosystem, ultimately driving efficiency and quality in software development processes.
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into integrating generative AI.
2. Understanding how this integration enhances test automation within the UiPath platform
3. Practical demonstrations
4. Exploration of real-world use cases illustrating the benefits of AI-driven test automation for UiPath
Topics covered:
What is generative AI
Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath integration with generative AI
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
GraphRAG for Life Science to increase LLM accuracyTomaz Bratanic
GraphRAG for life science domain, where you retriever information from biomedical knowledge graphs using LLMs to increase the accuracy and performance of generated answers
AI 101: An Introduction to the Basics and Impact of Artificial IntelligenceIndexBug
Imagine a world where machines not only perform tasks but also learn, adapt, and make decisions. This is the promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a technology that's not just enhancing our lives but revolutionizing entire industries.
Fueling AI with Great Data with Airbyte WebinarZilliz
This talk will focus on how to collect data from a variety of sources, leveraging this data for RAG and other GenAI use cases, and finally charting your course to productionalization.
Ocean lotus Threat actors project by John Sitima 2024 (1).pptxSitimaJohn
Ocean Lotus cyber threat actors represent a sophisticated, persistent, and politically motivated group that poses a significant risk to organizations and individuals in the Southeast Asian region. Their continuous evolution and adaptability underscore the need for robust cybersecurity measures and international cooperation to identify and mitigate the threats posed by such advanced persistent threat groups.
Ocean lotus Threat actors project by John Sitima 2024 (1).pptx
California Employment Law Notes
1. California Employment
Law Notes
Employees Had Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy But Failed To
SEPTEMBER 09 Prove Employer Violated Their Rights
Vol. 8, No. 5 Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009)
Plaintiffs Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez were employed by Hillsides Children
Center, a private nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children, including
by Anthony J. Oncidi
victims of sexual abuse. They shared an enclosed office where they performed clerical work
during daytime business hours. The director of the facility discovered that late at night
Mr. Oncidi is a partner in and (after Hernandez and Lopez had left for the day) an unknown person had repeatedly used a
the Chair of the Labor and computer in the shared office to access the Internet and view pornographic websites.
Employment Department of Concerned that the culprit might be a staff member who worked with the children, the
Proskauer Rose LLP in director installed a hidden camera in the office without notifying Hernandez and Lopez.
Los Angeles, where he Since neither Hernandez nor Lopez was suspected of any wrongdoing, the camera was never
exclusively represents operated during business hours and the women were not monitored by the surveillance
employers and management system. After discovering the hidden camera, the women filed this action, asserting a
in all areas of employment violation of their right to privacy. The trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment
and labor law. His telephone motion, but the court of appeal reversed, holding there were triable issues that plaintiffs had
number is 310.284.5690 and suffered an intrusion into a protected zone of privacy that was so unjustified and offensive
his e-mail address is as to constitute a privacy violation. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and
aoncidi@proskauer.com reinstated summary judgment for defendants, holding that although there may have been an
intrusion into the zone of privacy, there was no triable issue because the intrusion was not
“highly offensive and sufficiently serious to constitute a privacy violation.” Among other
things, the Supreme Court noted the surveillance was drastically limited in nature and scope
in that it exempted plaintiffs from its reach and defendants were motivated by strong
countervailing concerns (protection of the children).
Employer May Be Liable For Injuries To Pedestrians Caused By
Executive Returning Home From Conference
Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, 2009 WL 2784605 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
After returning home from a three-day business conference, an executive from Warner
Brothers was involved in an automobile accident that killed one and injured two other
pedestrians. Plaintiffs sought to impose liability on the employer based on principles of
respondeat superior. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment based on the
“going and coming rule,” which provides that an employer is not subject to vicarious liability
for accidents that occur during an employee’s commute to or from the workplace. Plaintiffs
contended on appeal that the business conference was a “special errand” and that the
employer, therefore, was not shielded from liability by the going and coming rule. The trial
court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the Court of Appeal reversed,
holding that the executive was involved in a special errand for the employer and, therefore,
he was acting within the course and scope of his employment until he arrived at his home or
2. deviated from the errand for personal reasons. Compare M.P. v. City of Sacramento, 2009
WL 2712833 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (city was not liable for alleged sexual assaults committed by
firefighters during the “Porn Star Costume Ball”).
Former In-House Counsel May Proceed With Claims For Termination
In Violation Of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Van Asdale v. International Game Tech., 2009 WL 2461906 (9th Cir. 2009)
Attorneys Shawn and Lena Van Asdale sued their former employer, International Game
Technology (“IGT”), for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1514A, arising from their alleged reporting of possible shareholder fraud in
connection with a merger with another company (Anchor Gambling). The defendants first
asserted the Van Asdales were precluded by the attorney-client privilege from prosecuting this
action against their former employer/client, but the district court and the Ninth Circuit
disagreed. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but the
Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held the district court erred in invoking the
“sham affidavit” rule (which requires a court to disregard an affidavit that contradicts the
witness’ early deposition testimony) because there were only “minor conflicts” between Shawn’s
earlier deposition testimony and his subsequent declaration. Further, the Court concluded the
Van Asdales had an objectively reasonable belief (as well as a subjective belief) that there had
been shareholder fraud preceding the merger and that they had raised a genuine issue of
material fact whether their protected activity was a contributing factor to their terminations –
which occurred within three months of their having allegedly accused high-level IGT (former
Anchor) executives of intentionally withholding material information prior to the merger.
Compare Mueller v. County of Los Angeles, 2009 WL 2462886 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
(summary judgment affirmed with respect to negligent investigation, whistleblower and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims).
City Ordinance Requiring Grocery Store Purchaser To Retain
Workforce For 90 Days Is Preempted
California Grocers Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 176 Cal. App. 4th 51 (2009)
On December 21, 2005, the Los Angeles City Council adopted the Grocery Worker Retention
Ordinance, which prohibited large “grocery establishments” from discharging employees for 90
days after the sale or transfer of the assets or a controlling interest in the business. The
purported rationale for the ordinance was to “ensure stabilization of this vital workforce,
which results in preservation of health and safety standards.” In this case, a trade association
of grocery store operators and suppliers challenged the ordinance on the ground that it is
preempted by the California Retail Food Code by which the Legislature expressed its intent to
“fully occupy the field of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities.” The trial
court and the Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the city ordinance was preempted by state
law as well as the National Labor Relations Act. Cf. Lockhart v. MVM, Inc., 175 Cal. App.
4th 1452 (2009) (FEHA disability discrimination and related claims were properly dismissed
because plaintiff was performing services for her employer at a federal correctional facility at
Terminal Island in San Pedro, which is a federal enclave).
2 P RO S K AUER ROSE LLP
3. Court Properly Rejected Reliance Upon Employer’s Uniform Policy
To Certify Class
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009)
Raymond Vinole and Ken Yoder filed this class action, alleging that the proposed class of
current and former Countrywide External Home Loan Consultants was misclassified as
exempt outside sales employees and that they were impermissibly denied overtime and other
wages. Before plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and prior to the pretrial
motion deadline and discovery cutoff, Countrywide filed a motion to deny class certification,
which the district court granted. Concluding that plaintiffs had “ample time” to prepare and
present their certification argument, the Ninth Circuit found “no rule or decisional authority
prohibit[ing] Countrywide from filing its motion to deny certification before plaintiffs filed
their motion to certify.” The Court further held the district court did not abuse its discretion
under FRCP 23(b)(3) because the record supported its conclusion that individual issues
predominated over common issues. In particular, the Court held that a “district court abuses
its discretion in relying on an internal uniform exemption policy to the near exclusion of other
factors relevant to the predominance inquiry.” In so holding, the Ninth Circuit refused to
follow Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 602 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Accord In re
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009). See also Ali v. U.S.A. Cab Ltd.,
2009 WL 2197069 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification in case against taxi cab company that classified its drivers as independent
contractors rather than employees).
Order Approving Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement Is Vacated
Clark v. American Residential Servs., 175 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009)
Derain Clark and Maxine Gaines filed a class action lawsuit against American Residential
Services, seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages, payment for missed meal and rest
periods and other violations. Eighteen months after the lawsuit was filed, the parties engaged
in a one-day mediation with a respected mediator and agreed to settle the matter for $2
million, out of which Clark and Gaines would receive $25,000 each. The other class members
would receive an average of $561.44. Notice of the proposed settlement elicited objections
from 20 putative class members who alleged the settlement resulted in their recovering only
about one percent of the total value of their claims and that no evidence was presented to the
court to justify the settlement. After a hearing, the trial court approved the settlement, and the
objectors filed this appeal. The Court of Appeal vacated the settlement because the trial court
lacked sufficient information to make an informed evaluation of the fairness of the settlement
– among other things, the objectors asserted that class counsel’s evaluation of the case was
based on a “staggering mistake of law,” concerning which the trial court apparently made no
independent assessment. The appellate court also concluded it was an abuse of discretion to
permit incentive or enhancement awards of $25,000 each to Clark and Gaines (more than 44
times the average payout to other class members) as well as costs totaling more than $44,500
when the notice to class members stated that plaintiffs’ counsel were requesting reimbursement
“of costs up to $40,000.”
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW NOTES 3
4. Individual Managers Could Be Liable For Unpaid Wages Under
The FLSA
Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2009)
Three former employees of the Castaways Hotel, Casino and Bowling Center and their local
union sued the employees’ individual managers for unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and Nevada law. Although the Nevada Supreme Court
determined there could be no individual liability under state law, the Ninth Circuit concluded
the three individual managers (the Chairman/CEO, the CFO and the head of labor and
employment matters – two of whom also owned the Castaways) could be considered
“employers” within the meaning of the FLSA: “Where an individual exercises control over the
nature and structure of the employment relationship… that individual is an employer within
the meaning of the Act, and is subject to liability.”
Company May Be Liable For Unpaid Wages For Time Spent
Transmitting Data
Rutti v. Lojack, Inc., 2009 WL 2568661 (9th Cir. 2009)
Mike Rutti filed this putative class action on behalf of all Lojack technicians who installed
alarms in customers’ automobiles. Rutti sought payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed by technicians in their
homes both before and after their shifts. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Lojack, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment insofar as it precluded Rutti from
seeking payment for the postliminary activity of sending daily portable data transmissions to
the company and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The Court
concluded that although Rutti was not entitled to reimbursement for his commute time or the
preliminary activities spent “receiving, mapping, and prioritizing jobs and routes for
assignment,” he might be entitled to reimbursement for the postliminary activity of sending a
daily transmission to Lojack from his home via a Lojack-supplied portable data terminal –
because the evidence “does not compel a finding that the daily transmission of the record of
the day’s jobs takes less than ten minutes.”
Employer’s Reason For Termination Was Possible Pretext
For Discrimination
EEOC v. The Boeing Co., 2009 WL 2501837 (9th Cir. 2009)
Boeing terminated the employment of plaintiffs Antonia Castron and Renee Wrede after they
received low scores on reduction-in-force (“RIF”) assessments, which Boeing used to evaluate
employees when determining whom to layoff. The EEOC established a prima facie case of
gender discrimination associated with the layoffs and in response Boeing articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions to terminate Castron and Wrede (primarily, low
RIF scores). Although the district court found insufficient evidence of pretext, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to Boeing and held that sexist comments from
Castron’s supervisor as well as circumstantial evidence that he “deliberately set Castron up to
fail because of her sex” warranted a jury trial on the disputed issues. Further, the Court
observed that “[c]oworker testimony is particularly relevant here because it would allow a jury
to infer that Boeing’s proffered reason for termination – a poor RIF evaluation – was not only
inaccurate, but is simply unworthy of credence.”
4 P RO S K AUER ROSE LLP
5. Employees Of Wal-Mart’s Suppliers Could Not Sue Wal-Mart For
Poor Working Conditions
Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009)
Plaintiffs (all foreign employees of Wal-Mart suppliers) filed this class action complaint against
Wal-Mart based on the working conditions in their employers’ factories located in China,
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Swaziland and Nicaragua. Plaintiffs relied upon a code of conduct
that Wal-Mart developed for its suppliers in 1992, entitled “Standards for Suppliers,” which
requires foreign suppliers to adhere to local laws and industry standards regarding working
conditions such as pay, hours, forced labor, child labor and discrimination. The complaint
alleged that Wal-Mart does not monitor its suppliers and that it knows they often violate the
Standards adopted by Wal-Mart. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged they are third-party
beneficiaries of the Standards, that Wal-Mart is plaintiffs’ joint employer and that Wal-Mart
negligently breached its duty to monitor the suppliers and to protect plaintiffs. The district
court granted Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss, holding that Wal-Mart owed no contractual or
other duty to plaintiffs; the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the action. Cf. Bauman v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2009 WL 2634795 (9th Cir. 2009) (claims asserted by Argentinian
residents against their former employer (Mercedes Benz Argentina) under the Alien Tort
Claims Act were properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction).
County May Have Breached Confidentiality Agreement With
Former Employee
Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino, 176 Cal. App. 4th 516 (2009)
Elizabeth Sanchez was a high-ranking county employee (the chief labor negotiator for the
county) who was widely regarded as a “rising superstar” before she became involved in a
“physical romantic relationship” with James Erwin, the president of the labor union that
represented the county’s sheriff’s deputies. When Sanchez’s supervisor discovered the
relationship, he insisted that she resign. Thereafter, Sanchez and the county entered into a
written severance agreement, which included a confidentiality provision, stating that the “facts,
events and issues which gave rise to this Agreement” would remain confidential. Immediately
after she resigned, newspaper articles appeared in which it was reported that Sanchez had
resigned due to a conflict of interest arising out of an “improper relationship” with Erwin.
Sanchez filed this lawsuit against the County and others, alleging, among other things, breach
of contract, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial
court granted summary adjudication on these claims in favor of the County, but the Court of
Appeal reversed, rejecting the County’s arguments that the confidentiality provision was
“contrary to public policy,” that its disclosures about Sanchez were privileged pursuant to Civil
Code § 47(a) and that Sanchez herself had waived the confidentiality provision by disclosing
information about her resignation to various third parties.
Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Properly Granted In Trade Secrets Litigation
Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, 175 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2009)
Raining Data sued two of its former employees and their new employer for misappropriation
of trade secrets. Defendants then filed a cross-complaint against Raining Data and its CEO –
to which Raining Data responded by filing a motion to strike all cross-claims pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The trial court granted the anti-
SLAPP motion and struck the entirety of the cross-complaint and also awarded Raining Data
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW NOTES 5
6. $112,353.75 in attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Raining Data
had met its burden of demonstrating the acts underlying the filing of the cross-complaint
arose from protected activity (i.e., the filing of Raining Data’s complaint). The Court also
affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to Raining Data. Compare The Retirement Group v.
Galante, 2009 WL 2332008 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (trial court erred in enjoining solicitation
of former employer’s customers in the absence of evidence of trade secret
misappropriation).
Court Affirms FEHC Award Of Damages And Fines In Pregnancy
Discrimination Case
SASCO Elec. v. California Fair Employment & Housing Comm’n, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482
(Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
SASCO Electric filed a petition for administrative mandate challenging a decision in which
the FEHC found SASCO liable for pregnancy discrimination against Zibute Scherl, one of
its employees who, before becoming pregnant, had worked successfully as second captain in
training of a yacht owned by the company. The yacht was captained by David McIntyre, a
SASCO management employee with the power to hire and fire employees, who was
“disappointed” by news of Scherl’s pregnancy because he thought it would impact her
working on the yacht and because in his experience “mothers to do not want to work in the
boating business.” McIntyre also had liability concerns to the extent Scherl continued to
work on the yacht further into her pregnancy because of her exposure to chemicals and
fumes and the potential she could slip and have a miscarriage. SASCO initially asked
Scherl for a release from her physician, clearing her to work. Although she obtained the
release, which included certain restrictions, Scherl never provided the release to SASCO
and, in any event, McIntyre told her to “hold off ” in obtaining the release and, instead,
instructed her just to “wait and see what happens first.” Scherl was then told that due to
budgetary restrictions (which had never been mentioned before), her position was being
eliminated. After her employment was terminated, McIntyre sent her an unsolicited letter
of recommendation describing her as the “hardest working, responsible, boat savvy
individual to work with me during my seventeen years on this vessel.” McIntyre allegedly
told others that “she can’t drive the boat and she’s pregnant,” that a planned trip to Mexico
was “unsafe for pregnant women” and that he laid her off instead of terminating her
because “that way we can’t be sued.” After a four-day evidentiary hearing, an
administrative law judge awarded Scherl four months of backpay, $85,000 in emotional
distress damages and imposed a fine against SASCO in the amount of $25,000.
SASCO petitioned the FEHC for reconsideration and then filed a writ of administrative
mandamus in the superior court, which the court denied. The Court of Appeal affirmed
entry of judgment against SASCO after concluding the award was supported by
substantial evidence.
Federal Employee Properly Exhausted Administrative Remedies
Before Filing Suit
Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities, 572 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009)
Vickey Kraus, a federal employee of the Presidio Trust who worked as a maintenance
inspector for approximately nine years, alleged that she is an African-American female, a
lesbian, and an individual disabled due to dyslexia, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, a
6 P RO S K AUER ROSE LLP
7. back injury with sciatica, and brain damage due to lead poisoning. She alleged
discrimination based on her race, gender, sexual orientation and her various disabilities as
well as retaliation for participating in the discrimination complaint process. Among other
things, Kraus complained that she was denied access to the Presidio Trust’s vanpool, that
her supervisor unfairly evaluated her and that she was falsely accused of sexually harassing
a female co-employee. The district court dismissed several of Kraus’s claims on summary
judgment because she had failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination and
dismissed others because Kraus had not adequately exhausted her administrative remedies.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and
reversed the summary judgment, holding that a federal employee seeking to proceed under
Title VII need not contact an EEO “counselor” to exhaust administrative remedies; the fact
that Kraus had contacted the EEO “officer” sufficed.
Messengers Were Properly Characterized As Employees For
Purposes Of Unemployment Insurance
Messenger Courier Ass’n of the Americas v. CUIAB, 175 Cal. App. 4th 1074 (2009)
Two trade associations, the Messenger Courier Association and the California Delivery
Association, sought declaratory relief invalidating a precedential decision by the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the “CUIAB”) assessing unemployment
insurance contributions and penalties against a courier service that had erroneously
characterized its messengers as independent contractors rather than employees. Plaintiffs
argued the CUIAB erroneously relied upon California Supreme Court authority in S.G.
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989), a case
involving employee status under the Workers’ Compensation Act, which they claimed is
inapplicable in the unemployment insurance context. The trial court and the Court of
Appeal disagreed, holding the CUIAB had not erred in its application of the law. Compare
Cortez v. Abich, 2009 WL 2767738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (homeowners who hired unlicensed
contractor to remodel their home were not employers for purposes of OSHA or workers’
compensation law).
Newly Enacted California Statutes
Noose Hanging = Hate Crime
Any person who hangs a noose, knowing it to be a symbol representing a threat to life and
for the purpose of terrorizing another, on the property of another or on the property of a
school, park or place of employment shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
and/or fined up to $5,000 ($15,000 for subsequent convictions). (A.B. 412).
Sports Betting Pools
Participation in a bet, wager or betting pool with another person or group of persons who
are not acting for gain, hire or reward other than that which is at stake for every participant
based on the result of a contest or event, including a sporting event, shall no longer be a
misdemeanor nor a felony, but shall only be an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed
$250. Caveat: This exception would not apply to bets, wagers or pools made online or to
betting pools with more than $2,500 at stake. And just in time for football season...
(A.B. 58).
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW NOTES 7