On January 28, 2013, a bill (S2488) was introduced that seeks to protect candidates for election to public office (federal, state, county, municipality, or school district) from retaliation by employers. Under the bill, it would be unlawful for employers to retaliate against their employees for campaigning or engaging in other related political activity during non-work hours. In order to enjoy the civil protections of the Act (including an injunction, reinstatement, lost wages and benefits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages), the employee would need to provide written notice of the retaliation to a supervisor (unless reasonably certain the supervisor was already aware), and provide the employer a reasonable opportunity to remedy the situation. The law would also contain notice and posting requirements.
The impact of the California Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Brown v. Superior Court, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1302 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) is on hold, at least for now. Last week, the California Supreme Court indicated it would grant review in the case that has drawn the attention…..
As predicted in the August/September 2014 issue of the Immigration eAuthority, the U.S. Department of State’s (DOS) Visa Bulletin for November 2014 indicates that the priority date for the employment-based second preference category (EB-2) for Indian nationals will retrogress more than four years, back to February 15, 2005. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country
The use of Rule 68 offers of judgment to moot the claims of plaintiffs in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action context has received much attention recently as the courts consider defendants’ use of this strategy in the wake of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision…..