Author Archives: gsauer

California’s Anti-Arbitration Bill Gets Signed Into Law

By Sonya Goodwin & Julia Y. Trankiem on October 29, 2019

Earlier this year, we wrote about a proposed bill in California, AB 51, which would prevent employers from requiring their employees to bring all employment-related claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour claims, in arbitration instead of state or federal court.  Earlier this month, Governor Newsom signed AB 51 into law.

The bill adds a new Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code and Section 12953 to California Government Code (referencing 432.6).  These sections prohibit any person from requiring any applicant for employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure (via an arbitration agreement or any other method) for a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the Labor Code as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit.  While the new law does not prohibit completely voluntary waivers, it specifically states that an agreement that requires an employee to opt out of such a waiver or take any other affirmative action to preserve their rights to a forum is considered a condition of employment, and is therefore unlawful under the statute.

Read the rest at Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Law as Big Business: State Bar Proposal Would Seriously Hurt Consumers

In June, the California State Bar proposed modifying existing ethics rules to enable nonlawyers to give legal advice and to allow insurance companies, hedge funds and other businesses to invest in law firms.

by Gerald Sauer

In June, the California State Bar proposed modifying existing ethics rules to enable nonlawyers to give legal advice and to allow insurance companies, hedge funds and other businesses to invest in law firms. The purported reason for this dramatic change is to “improve access to justice” and to allow “technology-driven delivery systems to engage in authorized practice of law activities.” It’s unfortunate that the state bar doesn’t see that it is being used as a shill by big business for an ulterior motive—corporate greed.

Read full story on Law.com

Ninth Circuit Skirts Issue of Whether Obesity is a Qualifying Disability Under the ADA

By Sonya Goodwin & Emily Burkhardt Vicente on September 5, 2019

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court’s ruling in favor of employer Medtronic, Inc. in a lawsuit alleging Medtronic unlawfully terminated employee Jose Valtierra’s employment because he was morbidly obese, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In doing so, the Court declined to decide whether morbid obesity is a disability, leaving this issue unsettled in the Ninth Circuit.

Valtierra alleged that Medtronic terminated his employment because he was morbidly obese.  In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Medtronic argued Valtierra’s employment was terminated for falsifying records to show he completed assignments when in fact he had not. It was undisputed that Valtierra admitted to Medtronic that he did not complete the assignments even though he entered that they were complete in the computer system.

Read the rest at Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Judicial Process For Music Copyright Must Be Reined In

by Gerald Sauer

Popular singers and their songwriting teams are walking around with targets on their backs. Last month, in Gray v. Perry, a Los Angeles federal jury awarded $2.8 million to Christian rapper Marcus Gray after finding that Katy Perry and her “Dark Horse” songwriting team infringed his song “Joyful Noise.” In doing so, it continued a copyright trajectory that includes theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 “Blurred Lines” decision,Williams v. Gaye, affirming a $5 million infringement judgment against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams in favor of heirs to Marvin Gaye.

Read full story on Law360