Articles

In Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., the Ninth Circuit has held that in retaliation case under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the injured party is not entitled to a jury trial and cannot obtain compensatory or punitive damages.

Pretrial Order Compelling Disclosure of Attorney-Client Communication Not Subject to Immediate Review In a case at odds with California law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a pretrial discovery order that compels disclosure of an attorney-client communication is not subject to interim review.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.) all students are entitled to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE). In some cases, a public school cannot provide adequate educational resources for a child with special needs.

On December 2, 2009, the California Court of Appeal filed its decision in the case of Donley v. Davi, Case No. C058975.

On December 9, 2009, in the case of Golden Drugs Co. Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, Case No. C058178, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision which upheld the termination of a pharmacy’s Medi-Cal provisional provider status by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS).

If an employee wrongly claims he is entitled to overtime compensation, can the employer fire him? The short answer is no. The California Court of Appeal held in Barbosa v. IMPCO Technologies, Inc.

In Roby v.

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between clients and attorneys.

The fact pattern is all too familiar. In a technical industry, an employee signs a “non-compete” clause and then changes employers and begins to compete against his or her old firm.

The California Court of Appeal has adopted the federal free speech standard in a state case involving a county law librarian who wrote a scathing email about his superiors and was terminated because of it.