Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of ...
As a matter of law, it was the dissenters, not her, who had ignored O'Connor: "By stripping public employees of all rights to privacy regardless of the actual operational realities of each workplace, the dissent would have us create a far broader rule than Supreme Court precedent allows. The majority of our court properly rejected the ...
The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California.It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, [1] but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. [2]
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes.
On Thursday, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that Brian Reid is entitled to a trial on his claim that Google fired him for being old. In making that decision, the court helped all ...
In the 1977 case Abood v.Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the ideological activities of the union.
California's Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which classified drivers working in the gig economy as independent contractors.
Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened ...