California Employment Law Team
FMG's California Employment Law Team is comprised of over 20 L&E attorneys representing employers throughout the Sunshine State. With offices in Sacramento, San Francisco (Downtown and Marin County), Los Angeles (Downtown, Hermosa Beach and Orange County) and San Diego, our attorneys combine local knowledge and nationwide expertise to provide employers with practical and successful representation.
Peter Catalanotti Receives Diversity Award
Congratulations to Peter Catalanotti who was recognized for his efforts to increase awareness of diversity issues in the Bay Area Legal Community. Mr. Catalanotti received the diversity award at the Barristers Club 9th Annual Diversity Reception.
By: Ze’eva R. Kushner
The landscape of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule continues to shift and has changed significantly since our last commentary on this topic in June. (DOL Fiduciary Rule is Delayed No More) On June 9, 2017, two provisions of the Rule became applicable: (i) the expansion of the definition of who is a fiduciary, and (ii) the establishment of impartial conduct standards. The next step, full implementation, is currently set to take place on January 1, 2018. This date is no longer set in stone. In fact, it likely will be delayed until mid-2019.
By: Jonathan M. Romvary
As we all know, the data privacy industry has been paying close attention to ongoing saga of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), including this firm’s blog, most recently here, here and here. That spotlight is shining a little brighter on the Ninth Circuit in connection with a ruling earlier this month.
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit issued its most recent Spokeodecision, holding, on remand, that the plaintiff, Thomas Robins, satisfied the harm requirement for Article III standing in his FCRA claim against Spokeo. Writing for the Court, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain set forth a two-step inquiry to determine whether a plaintiff satisfies Article III standing:
(1) Was the statute at issue established to protect the plaintiff’s concrete rights?
(2) Did the specific procedural violations cause or present a material risk of actual harm to plaintiff’s concrete rights?