Arbitration agreements in employment agreements may not be enforced, absent special care given by employers when hiring employees.

In light of the recent decision in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co, California employers should look closely at the identification provided by employees during the hiring process whenever an employee pursues claims for discrimination or retaliation relating to any termination or failure to hire.

Employers that think they can’t be held liable for anti-military animus or other discrimination in the workplace caused by supervisors with only limited authority should think again in light of the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital.

An employer that learns of harassing behavior from a third party must take immediate and appropriate action to correct the situation.

Over the last several years courts have been narrowing an employer’s ability to restrict employee activities after termination, culminating with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Authur Andersen LLP.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s termination two days after he complained to his employer’s HR office raised a triable issue of material fact based on circumstantial evidence that he was subject to retaliatory termination and that the employer’s stated reason for his termination was a mere pretext.