§Why CasetextPricing

PARATRANSIT v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

38 Cited authorities

  1. Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.

    486 U.S. 399 (1988)   Cited 2,058 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a retaliatory discharge claim was not preempted because the elements of the state tort did not necessitate interpretation of a labor contract

  2. Livadas v. Bradshaw

    512 U.S. 107 (1994)   Cited 1,587 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages

  3. Republic Steel v. Maddox

    379 U.S. 650 (1965)   Cited 1,168 times
    Holding that an "employee must afford the union the opportunity to act on his behalf

  4. Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.

    369 U.S. 95 (1962)   Cited 1,170 times
    Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301

  5. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.

    410 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 576 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim was not preempted where it was based on a statutorily guaranteed right to work-free meal periods even though the CBA purported to waive the right to work-free meal periods

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 425 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

  7. Ghirardo v. Antonioli

    8 Cal.4th 791 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 646 times
    Determining that whether a particular transaction was a loan subject to usury law or an exempt transaction of a different character was a question of law

  8. Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways Inc.

    255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 456 times
    Holding that "[i]f the claim is plainly based on state law, § 301 preemption is not mandated simply because the defendant refers to the CBA in mounting a defense"

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 202 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  10. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.

    62 Cal.2d 861 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 1,205 times
    In Parsons v. Bristol Dev. Co., supra, 62 Cal.2d at page 866, the court commented that "even in the absence of extrinsic evidence, the trial court's interpretation of a written instrument must be accepted '"if such interpretation is reasonable, or if [it] is one of two or more reasonable constructions of the instrument" [citation].'"

  11. Section 185 - Suits by and against labor organizations

    29 U.S.C. § 185   Cited 14,516 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal district courts jurisdiction over breach of contract claims arising out of collective bargaining contracts

  12. Section 1638 - Language governs interpretation

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1638   Cited 1,353 times
    Governing interpretation of contracts

  13. Section 1639 - Intention ascertained from writing

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1639   Cited 855 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing in part: "When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible"

  14. Section 1644 - Word understood in ordinary and popular sense

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1644   Cited 725 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that if parties give a term a special meaning, courts must follow the special meaning

  15. Section 2856 - Compliance with employer's directions

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2856   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses

    An employee shall substantially comply with all the directions of his employer concerning the service on which he is engaged, except where such obedience is impossible or unlawful, or would impose new and unreasonable burdens upon the employee. Ca. Lab. Code § 2856 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.

  16. Section 2 - Provisions construed as restatements and continuations

    Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code § 2   Cited 5 times

    The provisions of this code insofar as they are substantially the same as existing statutory provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments. Ca. Unemp. Ins. Code § 2 Enacted by Stats. 1953, Ch. 308.

  17. Section 1256-30 - Discharge for Misconduct -General Principles

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 1256-30   Cited 8 times

    (a) Scope. This section relates to general principles for discharge for misconduct connected with the most recent work. Sections 1256-31 to 1256-43, inclusive, of these regulations, relate to specific reasons for discharge for misconduct. An individual who accepts future work but engages in conduct which causes the employer to prevent or prevents commencement of this work, has not been discharged for misconduct but the issue is raised of whether the individual has refused suitable work without good