{"id":6431,"date":"2015-11-19T19:00:51","date_gmt":"2015-11-19T19:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.youngwooldridge.com\/?p=6431"},"modified":"2015-11-19T19:00:51","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T19:00:51","slug":"ensuring-sound-employment-contracts-employment-and-labor-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/themediabeast.com\/resources\/ensuring-sound-employment-contracts-employment-and-labor-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Ensuring Sound Employment Contracts | Employment and Labor Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ensuring Sound Employment Contracts\u00a0| Employment and Labor Law<\/h2>\n

Ensuring Employment Contracts Are Sound Under California Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

Employment and Labor Law<\/a> |\u00a0Numerous statutes exist that establish the parameters for employment contracts. Before implementation, companies should seek legal advice to ensure their contracts are sound.<\/p>\n

A case in point is Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates et al<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, ruled on in March, 2014 by the Court of Appeals of California. Ashley Ellis sued her employer and other parties based on sexual harassment, with the evidence of sexual harassment undisputed. However, a clause in the employment contract stated that employees must file claims or lawsuits no more than six months after the date of the employment action and that employees were to waive any statute of limitations to the contrary. The lower court dismissed the Ellis claim based on this contract provision because Ellis filed the claim after six months.<\/p>\n

However, the appeals court reversed the decision. The court found that the shortened limitation for filing lawsuits was unreasonable and against public policy. Ellis had filed her lawsuit within the state’s statutory limitations and also filed a timely notice of appeal. The court based its findings on the following public policy regarding an employee’s privilege to bring a lawsuit:<\/p>\n