<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Wirtz Law APC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wirtzlaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wirtzlaw.com</link>
	<description>Trial Attorneys specializing in Business &#38; Industry, Employment &#38; Labor, &#38; Real Estate</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:14:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Can an Employee Opt-Out of an Attendance Policy as a Reasonable Accommodation under ADA?</title>
		<link>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/20/can-an-employee-opt-out-of-an-attendance-policy-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-ada/</link>
		<comments>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/20/can-an-employee-opt-out-of-an-attendance-policy-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-ada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard M. Wirtz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wirtzlaw.com/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 11, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which includes California) issued another employer friendly decision.  In Samper v. Providence St. Vincent (9th Cir. 10-35811 4/11/12), the limits of an employer&#8217;s attendance policy were tested under the &#8230; <a href="http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/20/can-an-employee-opt-out-of-an-attendance-policy-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-ada/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/20/can-an-employee-opt-out-of-an-attendance-policy-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-ada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CA Supreme Court Holds Employers Are Not Required to Police Meal Breaks</title>
		<link>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/12/ca-supreme-court-holds-employers-are-not-required-to-police-meal-breaks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/12/ca-supreme-court-holds-employers-are-not-required-to-police-meal-breaks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:57:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard M. Wirtz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wirtzlaw.com/?p=1006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Super. Ct. (SC S166350) holding that the nature of an employer&#8217;s duty to provide meal periods is an obligation to relieve an employee of all of his or &#8230; <a href="http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/12/ca-supreme-court-holds-employers-are-not-required-to-police-meal-breaks/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/04/12/ca-supreme-court-holds-employers-are-not-required-to-police-meal-breaks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Out-of-State Employers Enforce Non-Competition Restrictions in California?</title>
		<link>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/10/can-out-of-state-employers-enforce-non-competition-restrictions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/10/can-out-of-state-employers-enforce-non-competition-restrictions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard M. Wirtz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wirtzlaw.com/?p=889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is becoming commonplace for California employees to be employed by out-of-state employers.  In some situations, the out-of-state employer will take advantage of the more employer friendly laws of the non-California venue and require the employee to sign non-compete agreements &#8230; <a href="http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/10/can-out-of-state-employers-enforce-non-competition-restrictions/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/10/can-out-of-state-employers-enforce-non-competition-restrictions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Military Leave Medical Benefits Choice:  USERRA or COBRA?</title>
		<link>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/02/military-leave-medical-benefits-choice-userra-or-cobra/</link>
		<comments>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/02/military-leave-medical-benefits-choice-userra-or-cobra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard M. Wirtz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wirtzlaw.com/?p=852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When employees take a leave of absence for military service, they are entitled to continue the health plan provided by their employer pursuant to two relevant statutes.[1] The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Consolidated Omnibus &#8230; <a href="http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/02/military-leave-medical-benefits-choice-userra-or-cobra/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/02/02/military-leave-medical-benefits-choice-userra-or-cobra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good News for Employers:  Employees Cannot Double Dip in both State and Federal Court</title>
		<link>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/01/18/good-news-for-employers-employees-cannot-double-dipping-in-both-state-and-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/01/18/good-news-for-employers-employees-cannot-double-dipping-in-both-state-and-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard M. Wirtz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wirtzlaw.com/?p=794</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent federal case of White v. City of Pasadena (9th Cir. 08-57012 1/17/12) the federal court ruled that it would not re-hear the same claims brought and lost in state court by a disgruntled employee. After being terminated from &#8230; <a href="http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/01/18/good-news-for-employers-employees-cannot-double-dipping-in-both-state-and-federal-court/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.wirtzlaw.com/2012/01/18/good-news-for-employers-employees-cannot-double-dipping-in-both-state-and-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

 Served from: www.wirtzlaw.com @ 2013-05-25 11:48:49 by W3 Total Cache -->