Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Giving Employers Guidance: The Proper Response To No-Match Letters Under Aramark Facility Services V. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, Steffanie Bevington
Giving Employers Guidance: The Proper Response To No-Match Letters Under Aramark Facility Services V. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, Steffanie Bevington
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit provided some guidance to employers in receipt of a no-match letter. Finding that receipt of a no-match letter does not give an employer "constructive knowledge" that an employee is unauthorized to work in the United States, the Ninth Circuit upheld an arbitration award reinstating employees who were terminated after their employer received a no-match letter. The Ninth Circuit held that termination of the employees was unwarranted under the circumstances because the company did not have sufficient information that it …
The Extension Of Privacy Rights To Workplace Text Messages Under Quon V. Arch Wireless, Heather Wolnick
The Extension Of Privacy Rights To Workplace Text Messages Under Quon V. Arch Wireless, Heather Wolnick
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a public employer violated the Fourth Amendment by searching the contents of text messages sent and received on a public employee's work-issued pager. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit found that the public employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the text messages, despite a formal Internet and computer policy stating otherwise. Relying on the two-part O'Connor test for public-employer searches, the court found that the search was more intrusive than necessary to determine …
Why Fight Fought?: A Missed Erisa Opportunity In The Ninth Circuit, Jill V. Cartwright
Why Fight Fought?: A Missed Erisa Opportunity In The Ninth Circuit, Jill V. Cartwright
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note analyzes the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's standard of review in cases in which a conflicted administrator has denied benefits. Part I of this Note examines early standards of review prior to ERISA. Part II sets forth the split among the circuits in evaluating a conflicted administrator's denial of benefits and explains the Ninth Circuit's former standard. Part ill compares the Ninth Circuit's prior standard of finding such denials presumptively void with its recent holding in Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Company, in which the court effectively adopted a unique standard similar …
Making-Up Conditions Of Employment: The Unequal Burdens Test As A Flawed Mode Of Analysis In Jespersen V. Harrah's Operating Co., Megan Kelly
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I of this Note reviews Title VII and foundational caselaw, including cases regarding sex discrimination and appearance standards. Part II examines the Ninth Circuit's Jespersen opinion. Part III compares the Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which expanded Title VII protection to include gender stereotyping, with the Jespersen holding. Part III also explores a Seventh Circuit case, Carroll v. Talman Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago, and Judge Thomas's dissent in Jespersen, which both argue for inclusion of less tangible factors such as gender stereotyping in the unequal burdens test. Part III finally contends that the …
Customizing The Reasonable-Woman Standard To Fit Emotionally And Financially Disabled Plaintiffs Is Outside The Scope Of The Civil Rights Act's Prohibition On Sex-Based Discrimination: Holly D. V. California Institute Of Technology, Amanda M. Jarratt
Golden Gate University Law Review
Tailoring the reasonable-woman standard to include select disabilities is problematic because employer liability would improperly depend upon the effect that the victim's disability had on the victim's perception, instead of on the agency relationship between the supervisor and the employer. Furthermore, these subjective standards would prevent employers from successfully invoking the reasonable care defense. Using these tailored standards would also result in discriminatory treatment under the law for women who did not qualify for one of these customized standards. Finally, customized standards would sterilize American workplaces. In support of this Comment's assertions against factoring the emotional and financial difficulties of …
Toward A Future Of Enforcement: A Critique Of The Ninth Circuit's Invalidation Of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements In Employment Contracts, Kerri Bandics
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment focuses on mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements that prospective employees must sign in order to be hired, or even considered, for a given position. Growing numbers of employers are implementing mandatory arbitration programs to resolve workplace disputes in response to recent case law upholding the enforceability of arbitration agreements. Employers may present arbitration agreements in employment contracts, employment handbooks, or in job applications. This Comment posits that while arbitration is an efficient method of adjudicating many claims, mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts are potentially unfair to employees for three reasons. These three concerns arise because employers typically control …
Expert Testimony And "Subtle Discrimination" In The Workplace: Do We Now Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows?, Deborah Dyson
Expert Testimony And "Subtle Discrimination" In The Workplace: Do We Now Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows?, Deborah Dyson
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment studies Elsayed in order to investigate these questions. The Background discussion traces the two great lines of cases whose trajectories cross in Elsayed, the Daubert v. Merrell Dow expert testimony jurisprudence under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the McDonnell Douglas v. Green line of cases establishing the "pretext" model of proof for individual employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then, turning to the opinion proper, the Analysis considers Elsayed under the following headings: (A) The Crux: The Court's Harmless-Error Determination, (B) Decoding in the Pretext Context, (C) Substituting the Mixed-Motives Regime …
Employee Benefits - Friedrich V. Intel Corp., Cynthia O'Brien
Employee Benefits - Friedrich V. Intel Corp., Cynthia O'Brien
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Friedrich v. Intel Corporation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's holding that Intel, by denying an employee's claim for long term disability benefits, failed to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In applying a two-part test to determine whether Intel acted in apparent conflict with its obligations as a fiduciary to its employee, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly reviewed the claim for long term disability benefits de novo and did not err in finding that the employee was entitled to benefits under …
Employment Discrimination - Gotthardt V. National Railroad Passenger Corp, Jennifer T. Dewitt
Employment Discrimination - Gotthardt V. National Railroad Passenger Corp, Jennifer T. Dewitt
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Gotthardt v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that front pay awards in Title VII cases are not subject to the compensatory damages caps stated in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (b)(3). This was an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. Other circuits had decided the issue and were split. The Ninth Circuit joined the majority of the federal circuits in holding that front pay awards are not subject to the section 1981a caps.
Undocumented Workers Are Entitled To Vote In Union Elections - But Are They "Employees" Under The Law?, Beth Wolf Mora
Undocumented Workers Are Entitled To Vote In Union Elections - But Are They "Employees" Under The Law?, Beth Wolf Mora
Golden Gate University Law Review
This note discusses the facts and procedural history of Kolkka. Part III provides a detailed legal and historical analysis of the applicable statutes, case law, and debates surrounding undocumented workers rights. Part IV describes the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Kolkka. Part V critiques the Ninth Circuit's holding in Kolkka asserting that undocumented workers have the right to vote in union elections. Finally, Part VI concludes that judicial decisions supporting undocumented workers rights as an "employees," outweighs the political opposition to rights for undocumented workers. Therefore, to protect undocumented workers, statutory language should expressly state that they are "employees."
Employment Law - Norman-Bloodsaw V. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Cristina E. Echevarria
Employment Law - Norman-Bloodsaw V. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Cristina E. Echevarria
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that employers who conduct nonconsensual medical testing may be liable for invasion of privacy under the United States and California Constitutions. In addition, the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects employees from nonconsensual medical testing that has a disparate impact on a protected group. The Ninth Circuit held, however, that the American's with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), does not limit the scope of the employee testing when the tests are administered after a …
Employment Law - Johnson V. State Of Oregon, Beryl Slavov
Employment Law - Johnson V. State Of Oregon, Beryl Slavov
Golden Gate University Law Review
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to its disabled employees to enable them to perform the essential functions of their position} In Johnson v. State of Oregon, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined the circumstances in which the doctrine of judicial estoppel could bar a claim under the ADA when the litigant has sought or received disability benefits. Because this was an issue of first impression, the court relied upon Federal Guidelines and case law from other circuits to conclude that the pursuit or receipt of disability …
Employment Law - Duffield V. Robertson Stephens & Co., Kate S. Langer
Employment Law - Duffield V. Robertson Stephens & Co., Kate S. Langer
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibited an employer from requiring, as a condition of employment, that prospective or current employees agree in advance to arbitrate Title VII claims arising out of the employment relationship. Relying on the purposes and legislative history of the 1991 Act, the Ninth Circuit became the only circuit to find that the Act barred these mandatory arbitration agreements.