Articles

In California, an employee is entitled to use accrued sick leave to care for a relative who is ill. The governing law is section 233 of the state Labor Code, commonly known as the “kin care” statute. In McCarther v.

The case of JustMed, Inc. v. Byce involves a common fact pattern.

The court of appeal has offered simple, straightforward advice in an email defamation case.

In the case of Sharabianlou v. Karp, the parties entered into an agreement for the defendants to sell a building to the plaintiffs. The transaction failed and litigation followed.

When a real estate deal fails and litigation ensues, the parties face an important choice: whether to sue for breach of contract or pursue a claim for rescission.

A recent decision from the First District Court of Appeal (Division Two) confirms that arbitrators have extremely broad authority to construe and interpret the meaning of labor contracts.

Under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654) an employee is entitled to sue for damages if an employer violates the statute. Remedies include an award of back pay, as well as an award of future damages (called “front pay”) if the evidence warrants.

An interesting problem arises when employees of religious organizations contend they are entitled to overtime. If the person is an “ordinary” employee (such as an office secretary), overtime laws may well apply.

In a lengthy decision that includes an impassioned dissent, the Ninth Circuit has upheld a local school district’s practice of having students recite the pledge of allegiance to the American flag as part of a “patriotic exercise” designed to comply with Education Code section 52720.

In California, an employee is entitled to use accrued sick leave to care for a relative who is ill. The governing law is section 233 of the state Labor Code, commonly known as the “kin care” statute. In McCarther v.