On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. refused to rule in favor for either Plaintiff, Peggy Young, or Defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), and instead, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case back to the Fourth Read more [...]On Thursday, February 19, 2015 a unanimous jury in Arizona District Court returned a verdict in favor of BurnsBarton client Kingman Hospital, Inc., d/b/a/ Kingman Regional Medical Center (“KRMC”). During the three-day trial, Plaintiff Chappell Grant-Willis alleged that KRMC violated the Americans Read more [...]There has been a lot of buzz about the gigantic punitive damages award recently handed down in a pregnancy and sex discrimination case in California. For us, it is an opportunity to examine what lessons can be learned.
Lesson No. 1: Employers must thoroughly train their managers and top-level executives Read more [...]Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court handed a considerable win to employers with the unanimous decision that businesses are not required to pay workers for time spent waiting for mandatory security checks.
In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, the Ninth Circuit had previously ruled that employees Read more [...]The Ninth Circuit decided a matter of first impression on Wednesday, which could make it easier for employers to defeat wage and hour collective actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In Greg Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., et al., employees argued that QCI (a cable television, Read more [...]
On September 10th, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (HWHFA). Beginning on July 1st, 2015, employers in California will be required to allow their employees to accrue, at their regular rate of pay, at least one hour Read more [...]The California Supreme Court recently announced that under section 2802 of the California Labor Code employers must reimburse employees who are required to use personal cell phones for work purposes. Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service (CA Ct App 2014).
"If an employee is required to make work-related Read more [...]On July 14, 2014 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new enforcement guidelines under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Such guidelines are not binding upon employers; rather, they instruct EEOC investigators about issues to watch for when investigating claims under the Read more [...]￼￼￼￼Asarco Urges 9th Circ. Panel To Cut Sex Harassment Award - Law360 6/19/14, 8:57 AM
Portfolio Media. Inc. I 860 Broadway, 6th Floor I New York, NY 10003
By Brandon Lowrey
Law360, Los Angeles (June 18, 2014, 10:01 PM ET) -- Arizona mining company Asarco LLC urged an en banc Ninth Circuit Read more [...]The June edition of the Arizona Attorney magazine lists the top eight defense verdicts in Arizona during 2013. Among them is Sanchez v. United Parcel Service, a case defended by BurnsBarton. Sanchez sought more than $700,000 in back wages and an unspecified amount in compensatory and punitive damages Read more [...]
About BurnsBarton PLC
BurnsBarton is a woman-owned business made up of big firm attorneys who have gone small to provide better client service at a lower cost. Our team has the horsepower necessary to handle big cases, while remaining committed to excellent client service. We focus on what we do best: advising and defending employers efficiently, effectively, and successfully. In short, we have “Big Law” experience, with better, more economical service.
We protect good employers from all types of employment claims. We win cases, and we do so in the most cost-efficient manner possible. We work with the best people on the planet.
The information on this web site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should contact an attorney for advice on your individual situation. Contacting BurnsBarton PLC does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Address: 2201 E. Camelback Road Suite 360 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-753-4500