Search for: "California Employment Law Letter" Results 381 - 400 of 2,207
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 May 2024, 5:37 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
In an April 24 letter to the state’s Employment Development Department, the company’s vice president of people, Scott Griffin, said Rivian planned to lay off more than 120 employees, including 89 in Irvine and 28 in Palo Alto. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 10:00 am by Joy Waltemath
Nor was Nordstrom required to inform the employee that continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of the new terms of employment. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 8:00 am by Nassiri Law
Recognizing that something needed to change, California legislators passed anti-discrimination laws specifically pertaining to those with AIDS or who are HIV-positive. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 9:05 am by Nassiri Law
Contact the employment attorneys at Nassiri Law Group, practicing in Orange County, Riverside and Los Angeles. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 10:41 am by Wage & Hour Blogger
  Thus, the inconsistency between the 9th Circuit and the DOL in the interpretation of the same provision of the law, creates some risk for California employers in the denial of CTO. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 6:44 am by Joy Waltemath
Specifically, noted the court, California provides that “[a]ll protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who have been employed, in this state. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 6:41 pm
At issue in the case was whether the employer’s settlement and release agreements entered into with individual employees settling disputed overtime wages were valid and enforceable under California law. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 7:56 am by Karen Tani
Via H-Law, we have the following job posting:The History Department at the University of California, Irvine, seeks to hire a tenure-track assistant professor in 20th-century United States history whose research focuses on political economy, intellectual history, and/or legal history. [read post]
31 Mar 2022, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
[Her employer] responded with a letter in March 2018 advising that federal FMLA and state Family Leave Act time run concurrently. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 9:37 am by Gail Cecchettini Whaley
Click here to send a letter to your legislators. [read post]
The Definition of an Adverse Employment Action The California Supreme Court has coined “adverse employment action” as a “term of art. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 9:09 am by Guest Author
  Also, California law does not only apply to dogs or miniature horses but can include any animal that meets the above definitions. [read post]
27 May 2015, 10:26 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
We have seen indications that the AG’s office is reviewing the list of covered employers and writing letters to companies about compliance. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 10:29 pm
  Employers may recall that last year a federal judge in the Northern District of California enjoined implementation of the DHS’ no-match rule. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 6:05 am by Ahilan Arulanantham
It comes from California, where a coalition of undocumented university students, their professors, and legal academics (including me) have argued that the University of California (UC) already has legal authority to open employment opportunities to all students regardless of their immigration status. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 11:13 am by Matthew J. Roberts, Esq.
Roberts, Employment Law Counsel/Subject Matter Expert Everyone can read more about COVID-19: New Federal PSL and Expanded FMLA in the HR Library. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 10:16 am by Rob
  Under California law, if an employee has unused accrued vacation at the end of his/her employment, the employer must pay out the unused but accrued vacation. [read post]
25 May 2017, 3:01 pm by HRWatchdog
California bill would bar employers from inquiring about an applicant’s prior salary. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 4:16 pm by Ashley Sykora
Rite Aid, the Court of Appeal made clear employers are not liable under harassment law for employees’ off-duty actions completely unrelated to work, even between a supervisor and subordinate. [read post]