Courthouse News
Designed by Infocard.cc
with Helene Wasserman
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Claims Brought By Individuals Who Are Not Participants In ERISA Plan Are Not Preempted By ERISA
In Miller et al v. Rite Aid Corporation (9th Cir. October 11, 2007), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that claims brought by individuals who are not participants of the ERISA plan at issue are not preempted by ERISA... More >>
In Miller et al v. Rite Aid Corporation (9th Cir. October 11, 2007), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that claims brought by individuals who are not participants of the ERISA plan at issue are not preempted by ERISA... More >>
California Court of Appeal Provides Some Hope to Employers Battling Meal and Rest Break Claims
In a well-drafted, yet currently unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (San Diego County) issued an order that, if published or followed in published decisions, will ease the tremendous burden currently placed on California employers related to meal and rest break claims. In Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Adam Hohnbaum Real Party in Interest) (October 12, 2007), the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order certifying the class action based on the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of the law... More >>
In a well-drafted, yet currently unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (San Diego County) issued an order that, if published or followed in published decisions, will ease the tremendous burden currently placed on California employers related to meal and rest break claims. In Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Adam Hohnbaum Real Party in Interest) (October 12, 2007), the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order certifying the class action based on the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of the law... More >>
California Supreme Court Holds that Employer May Satisfy Statutory Reimbursement Obligation By Paying Employees Enhanced Compensation
The California Supreme Court recently held that an employer can meet its obligations to indemnify its employees for expenses by paying employees an enhanced compensation that takes the expenses into account. See Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (11/5/07)...More>>
The California Supreme Court recently held that an employer can meet its obligations to indemnify its employees for expenses by paying employees an enhanced compensation that takes the expenses into account. See Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (11/5/07)...More>>
Helene Wasserman | 310- 772-7288 | HWasserman@littler.com