Home > Legal Library > Advanced Search > Search Results









Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Document Search Results (360)

 

View Page: Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  >>
Show: results per page
Sort by:
Sponsored Results

HTMLThe Franchise System in Peril: Joint Employer Status and the NLRB
Mark G. Kisicki, Colton D. Long; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 2, 2014, previously published on August 29, 2014
Over the past few months, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken a series of steps to dramatically broaden the long-standing standard of when a wholly-independent company (e.g., a primary contractor or franchisor) will be deemed a joint employer of the employees of another company...

 

HTMLHealthcare Reform in the U.S. Territories; Prepayment of Taxes for Puerto Rico Retirement Plans
Karen N. Brandon, Grace Huang Ristuccia; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 1, 2014, previously published on August 28, 2014
The summer of 2014 has brought further guidance for health plan coverage in the U.S. territories and for retirement plan coverage in Puerto Rico. Issuers and employer sponsors of Puerto Rico group health plans and employer sponsors of Puerto Rico retirement plans should review their plans to ensure...

 

HTMLCalifornia Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions
Ameneh K. Ernst; Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 1, 2014, previously published on August 28, 2014
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct that one...

 

HTMLCalifornia Court Interprets Vague Language in Arbitration Agreement in Favor of Employee
Ameneh K. Ernst; Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 1, 2014, previously published on August 28, 2014
Rebolledo v. Tilly’s Inc., No. G048625 (July 8, 2014): In a recent decision, a California Court of Appeal held that an employer cannot compel arbitration of a wage claim when the language in the parties’ arbitration agreement excluded wage and hour claims. The court held that a...

 

HTMLA Bird’s Eye View of the DFEH: An Interview with Patti Perez (Part 2)
Ameneh K. Ernst; Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 1, 2014, previously published on August 28, 2014
In part one of our interview with Patti Perez, Esq., SPHR, president and CEO of Puente Consulting, and member of the DFEH’s Fair Employment and Housing Council, Perez shared insights on her role as a DFEH councilmember and discussed proposed changes to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)....

 

HTMLEmployer Required to Reimburse Employees for Personal Cell Phone Use Despite Unlimited Minutes Plans
Christopher W. Olmsted; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
August 29, 2014, previously published on August 20, 2014
Cell phones are ubiquitous. At some companies, employees use their personal phones to make business calls. Does an employer need to “pay” for that use of the phone, even if the employee did not incur any extra expenses for doing so? Yes, according to an appellate court in a recent...

 

HTMLOFCCP’s Newest Directive: Gender Identity and Sex Discrimination
Leigh M. Nason; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
August 29, 2014, previously published on August 25, 2014
The stated purpose of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) August 19, 2014 Directive 2014-02 is to make clear that discrimination “based on sex” includes discrimination on the bases of gender identity and transgender status. Executive Order 13672, issued on...

 

HTMLState Court Lawsuit Removable if Plaintiff-Employee’s Pleadings “Fully Incorporate” EEOC Charge
Robert E. Bettac; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
August 29, 2014, previously published on August 26, 2014
“You have been sued.” Upon reading these first few words of a state court citation, most Texas employers—indeed, most employers—make it their first order of business to remove the case to federal court if at all possible. Defense attorneys cite various advantages to be...

 

HTMLResistance WAS Futile—California Conforms to ACA Waiting Period Requirement
Timothy G. Verrall; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
August 29, 2014, previously published on August 20, 2014
After wandering in the wilderness for a year, California has now come in from the cold and conformed its requirements for eligibility waiting periods to the federal standard adopted in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Effective January 1, 2015, SB 1034 imposes a 90-day limit on eligibility waiting...

 

HTMLTexas Supreme Court Establishes That an At-Will Employee Does Not Have a Viable Fraud Claim Based on Continued Employment
Adam D. Boland; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
August 21, 2014, previously published on August 19, 2014
The Texas Supreme Court recently issued a much-anticipated opinion regarding fraud claims in the employment at will context. In Sawyer v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 430 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. 2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had certified two questions to the Texas Supreme Court...

 


View Page: Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  >>