Publications Archives

Posted on September 25, 2014

By: Laura C. Hess and Sachiyo Miller

On August 12, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued a sweeping opinion in Cochran v. Schwan's Home Services, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137. The Court discussed the issue of whether an employer must reimburse an employee for the reasonable expense of mandatory use of a personal cell phone for work purposes, or whether the reimbursement obligation is limited to situations in which the employee incurred an extra expense that he or she would not have otherwise incurred absent the job. The answer is that partial reimbursement is always required.

On September 10, 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1522 otherwise known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. 

Posted on September 9, 2014

By: Justin R. Taruc

Nevada's rule on the admissibility of expert witness testimony is codified in Nevada Revised Statute 50.275, which states that a qualified expert witness may testify as to matters within that expert's scope of knowledge, so long as such testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. While the Nevada Legislature laid the foundation to allow expert testimony to be presented and granted judges the discretion as to whether to allow such testimony, it was not until Hallmark v. Eldridge (2008) 124 Nev. 492, that the Nevada Supreme Court gave further clarification on the factors judges were to consider when admitting expert testimony evidence.

By: Kyle D. Kring and Grace Pak

The increased decriminalization of marijuana use raises questions of whether employers are required to reasonably accommodate employees who use it for medical reasons, and whether they can terminate the employee for failing a drug test. As prudent employers, it is always a good idea to contemplate how the change in law will affect the workplace. Although sixteen states have legalized medical marijuana, along with two states that legalized recreational use, marijuana is nonetheless an illegal drug under federal law. Consequently, employers are not required to accommodate the use of marijuana, especially during work hours or on the employer's property.