The California legislature recently passed two bills that were significantly amended late in the legislative session. Senate Bill 588 was passed on September 10, 2015 and Assembly Bill 1513 was passed late in the day on the last day of the legislative session, September 11, 2015. Both bills are effective January 1, 2016, and will have a significant impact on employers who have paid employers piece rate compensation anytime over the past four years.
How a Detailed Job Description Can Prevent Violation of California's New Fair Pay
California has historically proven itself a leader in progressing women's rights and was one of the first states to adopt a statewide Equal Pay Act. Despite this, the California Legislature determined that in 2014, women in California who work full-time make only 84 cents for every dollar a male makes during the same amount of time, which amounts to a staggering $33 billion dollar loss for the state and families. To combat this, California's new Fair Pay Act (Senate Bill 358) - which takes effect on January 1, 2016 - intends to close that gap by modifying existing laws and requiring employers to pay men and women equal pay for "substantially similar" work.
Seller Beware: Disclosing Construction Defects and Lawsuits in the Sale of a Residence
The old saying "let the buyer beware" is of little relevance to California real estate transactions. If you are contemplating the sale of your home in California and have had construction defects or a prior lawsuit involving defects in your home, you should be aware of the basic disclosure requirements under California law.
Requests for Admission - A Back Door to Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Personal Injury Cases
Under California law, an award of attorney's fees is typically not available to a prevailing party at trial. The most common exceptions to this rule are statutes authorizing recovery of attorney's fees for particular actions and contracts authorizing recovery of attorney's fees in breach of contract actions. However, in personal injury lawsuits, the loser typically does not pay the winner's attorney's fees.
When Howell V. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. ("Howell") Meets The Uninsured Plaintiff
In Bermudez v. Ciolek (No. G049510, filed June 22, 2015, Superior Court Case No. 30-2012-00539759), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that an uninsured plaintiff's (no medical insurance) unpaid medical bills, substantiated by medical expert testimony regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the medical charges, were properly admitted and were sufficient evidence to support an award of damages.
Let it Fall! - Court of Appeals Precludes Recovery of Preventive Costs under Standard Homeowners Insurance Policy
In Grebow v. Mercury Insurance, published on October 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals rejected a homeowners' claim that an implied duty to reimburse costs incurred by the homeowner to prevent an insurable loss is imposed on a homeowners' insurance carrier. At first blush, this decision may appear unfair, since the homeowners efforts saved the carrier money in the long run. However, the Court justified its conclusion by stating that the homeowners' argument would convert a loss policy into a maintenance agreement, which is not what the parties intended when the policy was purchased.
"My Boss Stresses Me Out" Is Not a Disability
Good news for employers - the court recently ruled that an employee's claimed inability to work under a supervisor because of anxiety and stress arising out of the supervisor's standard oversight of job performance is not a disability recognized in California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Employment - Related Bills Pending in California Legislature
It's that time again to take a look at just some of the employment-related bills that are pending in the California Legislature. Most employers are still reeling from the historic paid sick leave bill that became effective July 1, 2015. However, there are a few bills that are steadily making their way through the Assembly and Senate that bear review and monitoring.
When Howell V. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. ("Howell") Meets The Uninsured Plaintiff
In Bermudez v. Ciolek (No. G049510, filed June 22, 2015, Superior Court Case No. 30-2012-00539759), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that an uninsured plaintiff's (no medical insurance) unpaid medical bills, substantiated by medical expert testimony regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the medical charges, were properly admitted and were sufficient evidence to support an award of damages.
Who and What Does Uninsured Motorist Provisions Cover
In Nevada, in determining as to whether a claim of injury is covered by the uninsured provision of an insurance policy depends on the interpretation of the uninsured provision. The court will look at the insurance contract in determining what individuals are covered in the provision and what injuries the individual may recover. Further, unless an uninsured motorist provision specifies that punitive damages will be included, punitive damages are not covered in an uninsured motorist provision.
