Monday, August 12, 2013

We made the SuperLawyers' Rising Stars List!

Landman & Mazza is proud to announce that both of our partners have made the Super Lawyers Northern California 2013 Rising Stars List!

Check Out the List by Clicking Here

Friday, April 13, 2012

Brinker v. Superior Court Decision Is In

The California Supreme Court issued it's decision in the Brinker case (Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum)) yesterday.  The court held that employers are required to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but that they may deviate from that where practically necessary.   The court also held that employers must relieve employees of all duty during meal periods, but need not ensure that the employee does no work.

Read the whole case here:

http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0412%2FS166350

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Supreme Court Says No Class Action for Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Claims

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, decided on June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court found that the sex discrimination suit was not appropriate for class treatment. In the case, current and former Wal-Mart employees alleged disparate treatment and disparate impact because the company gave local managers discretion over pay and promotions, and the employees claimed that discretion was exercised disproportionately in favor of men. The Court found that because the employees failed to show that Wal-Mart had a general policy of discrimination, there was no commonality, which is required for class action suits.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

JNOV for Insufficient Evidence in Sex Harassment Case Affirmed

The California Court of Appeal recently held in Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprises, Inc. that a trial court properly granted a judgment not withstanding the verdict (JNOV) for insufficient evidence in a sexual harassment case. The case involved a female plaintiff who alleged that she received an e-mail that was harassing because of gender, and also alleged four incidents of sexual harassment that occurred over a four-year period and were perpetrated by three different people.

Read the complete decision here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8544328561348229657&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Landman & Mazza Offering Free Employment Law Class

Landman & Mazza represents employees in a wide range of employment law matters. As two female attorneys, we are passionate about the rights of women in the workplace and our work has shown us how many women lack basic information
about their rights.

Please join us for this free seminar to learn more about the employment rights of women, including information on maternity leave, sexual harassment, discrimination, medical leave, and other areas you have questions about. While this seminar will focus on women’s rights, we encourage men to attend as well.

Event: Free Employment Law Seminar

Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Time: 6:00 – 7:00 pm

Location: Red Morton Community Center, Room 3
1120 Roosevelt Ave., Redwood City, CA 94061

RSVP: Please RSVP to info@landmanmazza.com no later than Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Taught By: Laura M. Mazza & Kathryn S. Landman

*Refreshments will be provided*

The California Supreme Court Heard Arguments on Brinker Case

On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Brinker case, which will determine whether or not employers are required to merely make meal and rest periods available to their employees, or ensure that the employees are in fact taking their breaks. This decision will be the conclusion of eight years of pending litigation against Brinker International, which operates restaurant chains, for the company’s alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods to its employees as required under California law. The Court must issue its decision within 90 days of the oral arguments.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Drug Use Is a Lawful Reason Not to Hire

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects recovering drug addicts from discrimination in the workplace. However, a California court of appeal recently confirmed that job applicants who are using drugs when they apply for a job are not protected under the law. The plaintiff in the case argued that the defendant's practice of permanently disqualifying applicants who were found to be using drugs at the time they applied was discriminatory because it disproportionately excluded recovering addicts, but the court found that the employer was within its rights to do so.

Read the whole decision here: http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0911%2F09-55698