Earlier this year, California’s Supreme Court decided Harris v. City of Santa Monica, in which it raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking to prove that their employer illegally discriminated against them. Plaintiffs must now prove that discrimination was a substantial factor, not just a motivating factor in an employer’s decision to terminate employment.
On Monday, upholding the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) strong deference to arbitral decisions, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held, in Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, that where an arbitrator interprets an arbitration agreement to include class arbitration, even if that interpretation is incorrect, it will be upheld.
Are you ready for the new FMCSA Hours of Service regulations?
Published on Sat, 05/18/2013 - 10:53pm
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has been clear that it will not delay the July 1, 2013 start date of the Hours of Service (HOS) regulations announced in December 2011. Here's a quick status of attacks to these new HOS rules and a summary of the changes, so you can be prepared.
What happens if your franchisor terminates your franchise or business is so lousy that you can't make a go of it, but you still have two, three or as many as ten more years to go on your commercial real estate lease? Well, that depends.
In California, unconscionability is still the battleground, but for how long?
Published on Sat, 04/20/2013 - 1:24pm
Dealers are under assault by consumers and employees who, in a still-recovering economy, too often use the court system as a bonanza to address their own economic troubles, unrelated to anything the dealer did or failed to do.
Today, the FTC announced that it has issued final amendments to the Alternative Fules Rule, consolidating the labels required on alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) with those required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), eliminating the need for two different labels and reducing the burden on manufacturers and used car dealers of complying with the rule.
Is there a real problem or is the CFPB just flexing its muscle?
Published on Sun, 03/31/2013 - 2:30pm
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a bulletin on what it perceives as the "potential for discriminatory pricing" caused by the policies of some indirect auto lenders that allow auto dealers to mark-up lender-established buy rates and that compensate dealers for those markups in the form of reserve.
Factory image programs have long been the bane of dealers' existence. It goes something like this: In the quest for effective branding to increase market share, manufacturers require their dealers to make periodic facilities upgrades.