Archive - 2007

Archive - 2007

December 16th

Driving Away Reimbursement Claims

California Labor Code section 2802 requires an employer to reimburse employees for all expenses which were necessarily incurred in the course of employment. While this is a relatively straight-forward statute, it may not always be easy to apply in business. The most common form of employee reimbursement is automobile costs. The California Supreme Court recently issued a ruling which gave employers some guidelines for the reimbursement of employee car expenses.

Back to Articles

October 14th

Employees' "Vested Vacation" Pay: What Employers Need to Know about Providing Vacation in California

By Hugh A. McCabe & Alan B. Graves

There is no legal requirement in California for an employer to provide its employees with either paid or unpaid vacation time. However, most employers do provide some kind of vacation benefit either to ensure its employees get needed relaxation and work rejuvenation or to remain competitive for retention of their employees.

Back to Articles

September 16th

A New Weapon has Emerged in Defending Lawsuits Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Unfortunately, lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are becoming a fact of life for business in America. These lawsuits are not only costly but are difficult to defeat. The United States government has imposed a series of regulations which outline minimum requirements for compliance with ADA. Plaintiffs then sue under the technical aspects of the ADA and request attorney’s fees. Often, business can be violation of the ADA without realizing it.

Back to Articles

August 31st

August 19th

Employers Need to Cope with Medical Leave Laws in 2007

By Alan B. Graves

If your company is subject to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), it is important to recognize these laws impose many obligations beyond the mere duty to provide leave to eligible employees when asked to do so. This is especially important when an employee is potentially subject to an adverse action by the employer. Employers need to ensure compliance with these laws to avoid claims and lawsuits for wrongful termination or retaliation.

Back to Articles

August 5th

Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel Elects Michael Neil to 2007-2008 Board of Directors

At its annual meeting in Sun Valley, Idaho, The Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC) announced its 2007-2008 Executive Officers. Neil Dymott attorney Michael I. Neil was re-elected to serve as a member of the Board of Directors for 2007 – 2008. Members of FDCC are exceptional practitioners involved in corporate litigation, risk management, insurance and dispute resolution. Fellow Neil Dymott Shareholder, Clark R. Hudson is also a member of this distinguished group of attorneys.

Back to News

July 31st

Tips for Hiring and Firing: What Every Business Owner Should Know

By Hugh A. McCabe

Although it may not always be the most pleasant aspect of the job, hiring and firing is an essential part of running every business. In order to prevent potential lawsuits, all employers should be aware of the following simple, although not always obvious, employment law tips.

Back to Articles

Neil Dymott Announces its Membership in the Council on Ethical Billing (CEB)

Neil Dymott was recently extended an invitation to join the Council on Ethical Billing (CEB). Selection of attorneys and law firms to the Council by Fellows is indicative of their reputation for performance, ethics and professional commitment to the community and diversity. Thus, the exclusivity of an invitation to join the Council is itself an achievement.

Back to News

July 15th

Personal Liability for Retaliation is Yet Another Burden for Supervisors

In 1998, the California Supreme Court ruled supervisors were not personally liable for damages resulting from wrongful termination or discrimination. The California Supreme Court recently granted review of Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines where a supervisor was held personally liable for retaliation when an employee lost his job. Individual supervisors need to be aware their actions could put their personal assets at risk.

Back to Articles

June 17th

Pay Disparity: Does the High Court's Recent Decision Make It Easier for Employers to Defend Against Past Pay Discrimination Claims?

By Alan B. Graves

The U.S. Supreme Court in a recent decision said employees claiming they received disparate treatment based on gender or race must do so within 180 days of the original discriminatory action -- not within 180 days of their last paycheck. The New York Times reported approximately 40,000 pay discrimination cases were brought between 2001 and 2006 and many of them will likely be barred by the Court’s new interpretation of Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Back to Articles


Web design by Acro Media Inc