Just as forming a business partnership under California law requires completion of certain tasks, ending a partnership is also a process. General partnerships, where there is no specific end date, must be dissolved using three basic steps. These steps apply when partners voluntarily agree to dissolve the partnership. Where partners cannot agree, legal action is typically the best way to resolve disputes over the dissolution process.
In California, a law exists to help regulate competition between different types of businesses: the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). One of the main objectives of the UCL is to reduce the amount of false advertising that takes place in certain industries.
Defining Unfair Competition in California
It is important to understand the requirements and protections covering employee paychecks under California law. Employees have numerous rights and legal protections, with a myriad of laws protecting them. Employers must understand what is required to avoid running into legal problems, including class action lawsuits.
When Are Employees Entitled to Receive Their Pay?
Generally speaking, joint employment, or co-employment, is the sharing of control and supervision of an employee’s activity among two or more business entities. A benefit of the increasingly popular employment practice is the ease with which joint employers are often able to hire experts in niche industries, individuals with specialist skills, and/or even replace their regular workforce. Currently, however, no single legal definition of joint employment exists and Congress is out to change that.
Are non-compete agreements truly a thing of the past in California? It seems that the California Supreme Court would like employers to think so. After all, in 2008 the Court brought down the hammer on these covenants not to compete (a clause under which one party (usually an employee) agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party (usually the employer)), holding that California Business Code §16600 prohibits all restraints on trade, including non-solicitation provisions (Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, 44 Cal. 4th 937(2008)).
These days, it seems that Uber can’t stay out of the news. From wage and hour claims (were drivers being misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees? Read more on the distinction between the two here) to vicious assaults (by both drivers and passengers), the ride-sharing app has had its time in the limelight.
With the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) on the horizon, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is focusing on the issue of age discrimination in the workplace. Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age and the ADEA “forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40”. Side note: It is not unlawful for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.
In 2016, Assembly Bill No. 1732, also known as the “All-Gender” Bathroom Bill (Bathroom Bill), was introduced to the California legislature and subsequently signed into law by Governor Brown. The Bathroom Bill was sponsored by California NOW, Equality California, and the Transgender Law Center because “restrict[ing] access to single-occupancy restrooms by gender create problems of safety, fairness, and convenience.” And recently, the bill went into effect.
Before the Bathroom Bill
Various types of insurance policies have a provision within them that gives the policyholder the right to have an attorney (who is appointed and paid for by the insurance company) represent them in the event that they are named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Read on for 4 ways to improve the odds of the case being settled or decided in your favor.
California Supreme Court: Public Employees’ Work-Related Texts and Emails on Private Devices are “Public Records”
According to the California Supreme Court, public employees’ communications about official agency business may be subject to California Public Records Act (CPRA). This extends to communications on personal computers, smartphones, tablets, etc…
While this is a case involving a public sector employer and the CPRA, I foresee that it may – and sooner than later — be relevant to private sector employers and “bring your own device” policies (more on those here), as well as private sector employees’ privacy interests.