California Employment Attorney Blog

Following on the heels of the Mattel v. Bratz trial, in which Mattel successfully sued Bratz for copyright infringement regarding the highly successful Bratz line, comes Starwood v. Hilton. Starwood has filed suit against Hilton, alleging that two of Starwood's key executives misappropriated thousands of confidential, trade secret documents and brought them to their new employment with Hilton, allowing Hilton to steal Starwood's concept for a new luxury hotel chain.

The executives were president and vice-president of Starwood's luxury-brand group, and were key to the success of Starwood's W Hotel chain. Starwood alleges that after Hilton began recruiting the executives, they begin misappropriating over 100,000 documents containing confidential information relating to a new luxury hotel brand that Starwood was developing.

Continue reading "Hotel Titans Clash over Trade Secrets" »

A California Court of Appeal issued a decision an employment law decision on arbitration this week that is remarkable in the clarity of its logic. In Roman v. Superior Court, the appellate court considered whether an agreement to arbitrate employment-related claims was enforceable. The arbitration agreement contained a clause providing, "I agree, in the event that I am hired by the company, that all disputes and claims that might arise out of my employment with the company will be submitted to binding arbitration."

The employee tried to prevent her case (disability discrimination) from being submitted to arbitration. She claimed that the agreement was one-sided, requiring only the employee, not the company, to arbitrate claims. She also argued that because the agreement was a pre-printed, "take it or leave it" document, it was a contract of adhesion.

Continue reading "California Court Upholds Arbitration Agreement (Finally)" »

In Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., a California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of negligent hiring and retention, a common employment law stumbling block for companies. In the Phillips case, one of TLC's employees had been convicted for domestic violence and arson involving his former wife. TLC learned this about the employee when it hired him. The employee struck up a relationship with a customer while on a service call to her house. TLC terminated the employee a month later for misuse of a company vehicle, drug and alcohol use, and threatening a coworker. The terminated employee and the woman, however, became romantically involved and continued their relationship after the employee's termination. Approximately two years after his termination from TLC, the former employee shot and killed the woman. The woman's family then sued TLC for negligent hiring and retention.

TLC argued that it did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff, because the murder had occurred two years after TLC terminated the employee. The California Appellate Court agreed, finding that "[B]ecause the employer-employee relationship ends on termination of an employee's employment, we conclude an employer does not owe a plaintiff a duty of care in a negligent hiring and retention action for an injury or harm inflicted by a former employee on the plaintiff even though that former employee, as in this case, initially met the plaintiff while employed by the employer."

The court also found it significant that the initial social relationship began outside of the employee's employment duties, and that the romantic relationship did not begin until after TLC terminated the employee. The court held that employers are not required to guarantee the safety of all customers or other persons that their employees come into contact with. And the employer cannot be liable unless it knows or should have known that the employee was unfit to perform his job duties.

Continue reading "California Employer Not Liable for Terminated Employee's Murder of Customer" »

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 14 Penn Plaza LLC et al. v. Pyett et al., a decision issued last week, held that a union and an employer can agree that employee discrimination claims will be submitted to arbitration only, and will not be filed in court. The Court overruled its 1974 decision that had long been relied upon by employment lawyers for the proposition that unions could not negotiate away an employee's right to sue in court for discrimination.

"As in any contractual negotiation, a union may agree to the inclusion of an arbitration provision in a collective-bargaining agreement in return for other concessions from the employer," the Court concluded. "Courts generally may not interfere in this bargained-for exchange."

The court's opinion involves federal anti-discrimination law, and thus is relevant to any California employer with a unionized workforce.

Continue reading "US Supreme Court Permits Unions to Agree to Arbitrate Discrimination Claims" »