There was a good reminder to everyone over Christmas about online “privacy.” Randi Zuckerberg, the sister of Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a picture of her and her family on FB, and it was shared by another person on twitter. The photo was one of the Zuckerberg family using Facebook’s new Poke functionality
Surprise – Employers Face New Employee Personnel Records Obligations in 2013, But The Term “Personnel Records” Is Not Defined
California employers face a law (AB 2674) taking effect on January 1, 2013 (click here for a list of other new employment laws effective in 2013), which changes their duties to maintain and provide personnel records to current and former employees. The law amends Labor Code section 1198.5 pertaining to "personnel records". When
New Laws Facing California Employers In 2013
There are some significant changes regarding California employers’ duties in 2013. This list is an overview of the major changes that employers should consider and be aware of at the beginning of 2013.
Employers Cannot Ask Applicants Or Employees For Social Media Passwords – AB 1844
This law created Labor Code section 980, which
Reminder To Carefully Draft Executive Agreements – Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc.
The judgment against the defendant for $1,347,000 in Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc.
should be a good reminder for companies to have well drafted executive agreements. Faigin worked as General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer for Fremont General, a parent corporation. Defendant had various subsidiary companies that Faigin also worked for during his employment.
Health Care Reform and The Affordable Care Act – Webinar
It is time to start planning for how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, will effect your business. Peterson Milaney Associates, will be hosting a webinar on the new law and what employers need to start planning for now. The webinar is taking place on Monday, December 3, at
Can California Labor Code Provisions Apply To Non-resident Employees Working in California?
Given the increasing mobility of the workforce, the issue of which state’s laws apply to a traveling employee is becoming more and more common. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the California Supreme Court held that California-based employers must pay non-resident employees working in California according to the California’s overtime laws. That means that a
Proposed Bill Gives NLRB And OSHA Right To Review Emails And Other Electronic Information Without Search Warrant
There is concern about a bill making its way through the Senate that would drastically change individuals’ privacy interest in their internet communications and “cloud” information. The bill, named the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2011, originally started out as offering more protection to individuals, but after law enforcement expressed its concerns about
NLRB Issues New Memo On Validity of Social Media Policies
In October 2012 the National Labor Relations Board issued an advice memorandum regarding whether an employer’s social media policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). This memorandum is of importance because the NLRB has issued findings recently that employer’s seemingly neutral social media policies violated employees’ rights under the NLRA. Section 7 of the
Court Upholds Timekeeping Rounding Policies: See’s Candy Shops Inc. v. Superior Court
In See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court the court addressed whether an employer’s policy of rounding employee’s time clock entries to the nearest tenth of an hour. See’s Candy’s policy rounded employees’ time entries either up or down to the nearest tenth of an hour in its Kronos time keeping system. For example, if
Silicon Valley Companies Sued Over Agreements Not To Hire Competitor’s Employees
Were Silicon Valley companies artificially keeping wages lower by having an agreement not to 
poach employees from competitors? This issue came to a head in 2010 when the Department of Justice settled an antitrust case with Adobe, Pixar, Google, Apple, Inuit, and Intel. The DOJ alleged that the companies had agreement not to poach each