Disney to Face Legal Claim for Barring Employees From Discussing Pay hollywoodreporter.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from hollywoodreporter.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Courts are increasingly scrutinizing agreements that extend beyond what is necessary to protect bona fide confidential information and trade secrets. The recent decision in
Hamilton v. Juul Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03710-EMC, illustrates this trend. On January 27, 2021, a California federal judge ruled that an ex-employee’s lawsuit against e-cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs, Inc. regarding Juul’s allegedly over-restrictive non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may move forward. The case, filed by Juul’s former Director of Program Management, Marcie Hamilton, is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Edward M. Chen presiding.
Friday, February 12, 2021
Courts are increasingly scrutinizing agreements that extend beyond what is necessary to protect bona fide confidential information and trade secrets. The recent decision in
Hamilton v. Juul Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03710-EMC, illustrates this trend. On January 27, 2021, a California federal judge ruled that an ex-employee’s lawsuit against e-cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs, Inc. regarding Juul’s allegedly over-restrictive non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may move forward. The case, filed by Juul’s former Director of Program Management, Marcie Hamilton, is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Edward M. Chen presiding.
In her amended complaint, which alleges numerous PAGA violations under the California Labor Code and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Plaintiff alleges that via its pre-employment NDAs, Juul maintains a policy of restricting employee speech, comp
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Update February 10, 2021: This blog has been updated to reflect current guidance about California meal and rest break laws.
On September 26, 2019, California’s Second District Court of Appeals in
Gustavo Naranjo, et al. v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. held that unpaid premium wages for meal break violations do not entitle employees to additional remedies under the California Labor Code for inaccurate wage statements or waiting time penalties.
By limiting employees’ ability to bring derivative inaccurate wage statement and unpaid wage claims, the decision immediately decreases employers’ overall exposure for Labor Code penalties, class counsel’s attorneys’ fees, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).