[2006alum]

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

Ironically, I mistakenly took your first response as not cynical enough! (Ah, how easy it is to misinterpret tone on the Internet!) Yes, being in the law myself, I've come to be cynical about people exploiting every loophole they can and not acting in good faith. Which once again brings us back to the main topic of this thread... ;)

[2006alum]

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

Ironically, I mistakenly took your first response as not cynical enough! (Ah, how easy it is to misinterpret tone on the Internet!) Yes, being in the law myself, I've come to be cynical about people exploiting every loophole they can and not acting in good faith. Which once again brings us back to the main topic of this thread... ;)