I'm a little confused by this piece, because it talks about SB 796 and not the recent bill that just took a lot of the punch out of it. What's up with that? Also, is she implying that a bill can be retroactive without any indication, even implicit, that it is?
While there is no indication that this law is deemed retroactive by the legislature, it will likely be a familiar sight in all new employee claims against violating [sic] employers.Why even mention retroactivity then? I'm not sure what the point of that is. She feigns an attempt at balance at the end with the very trendy "on the other hand" job. With those caveats, it's a good road-map to some of the new employment laws out there.
[CLEL notices that it is usually strikingly easy to tell when a piece is written by an employer side lawyer or an employee side lawyer, including the use of agit-prop. Is this the case in all branches of law? CLEL was a former bankruptcy jock-in-training, and doesn't remember the creditor/debtor divide being so obvious in prose like this.]
