Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Recent Developments from Around the States

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
January 03, 2006

Job Applicants Who May Have Been Taped Without Their Consent Cannot Form Ascertainable Class

Affirming the lower court's decision, the Second District California Court of Appeals has held that for purposes of class certification, a class of individuals who may have been videotaped and/or audiotaped during their job application process did not constitute a properly ascertainable class for purposes of class certification, nor was class treatment a superior method for handling a potential lawsuit brought by these applicants. Craven v. Diversified Financial Concepts, Inc., 2005 WL 3112177 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., Nov. 22).

Appellants John Craven and Jared Zubalsky, former employees of Respondent Diversified Concepts, Inc., an insurance and financial products marketing company, brought suit against Respondent after learning, subsequent to leaving the company, that during their application process they and other applicants may have been taped without their knowledge or consent. The application process consisted of a 2-day session, on the first day of which a group slide show presentation was shown, followed by a question-and-answer period and one-on-one interviews, and on the second day of which additional one-on-one interviews were conducted. Appellants alleged that one or both of these segments of the process were videotaped or audiotaped at various of Respondent's branches, and that they, and other class members, had neither been informed of this practice, nor asked to consent prior to its use. In fact, Respondent had inconsistent policies for the taping of applicants across its various California offices; while some offices never videotaped or audiotaped these sessions, some did so with applicants' consent, and others did so without consent, but for training purposes only, and not to focus on applicants. Appellants sued Respondent for violations of Penal Code section 632 and Business and Professions Code section 17200 on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, whom the complaint identified as the class of all persons “'who participated in the group slide presentations, the individual and/or one-on-one interviews as a part of their application for employment as a commissioned employee with [respondent] at one of its California offices for the past 4 years.'”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?