Employers need not necessarily compensate time spent commuting in company-owned vehicles, even when the company imposes restrictions on how such vehicles are to be used.
Real estate agents are likely not properly classified as independent contractors after Dynamex.
Can secular courts decide employment disputes that occur at religious institutions?
California attempts to clarify it's ban on asking applicants about prior salary.
Failure to pay final pay timely must be willful for liability.
Just a Minute? - California Supreme Court Rules that Federal De Minimis Defense Does Not Apply to Labor Code Claims
California Supreme Court issues opinion in off-the-clock work case, holding that de minimis defense does not apply under state law.
Employer suffers major consequences for minor difference in employee handbook translation.
Court of Appeal holds employer liable for "negligent" inquiry into whether all wages owed were correctly paid.
California Court of Appeal holds that PAGA plaintiff can pursue penalties even for violations that he or she never experienced.
U.S. Supreme Court holds that mandatory arbitration agreements with class action waivers do not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
A New Strand in the Web of Worker Misclassification Law: A New and More Difficult Test for Classifying Workers as Independent Contractors
In its recent decision Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) (Dynamex), the California Supreme Court articulated a new test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
San Francisco just amended its “ban-the-box” law to protect an additional category of convictions.
California law imposes restrictions on employee drug testing.
Last week the California Supreme Court provided clarity to employers regarding how non-exempt employees who are paid bonuses should be paid.
Many Employers in California have relied, and continue to rely, on arbitration agreements with employees in order to avoid the great expense of wage and hour class actions. In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ATamp;T Mobility v. Concepcion that Californias anti-arbitration rule (...
Telecommuting policies are not without hidden dangers. Consider the risk and implement carefully to avoid potential liability.
As of the first of this month, recreational marijuana use is now legal under state law. Does that mean employers need to re-vamp their drug use and drug testing policies to allow for marijuana use? Nope. Employers may continue to prohibit marijuana use and may test employees for marijuana unde...
Last week a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified three questions to the California Supreme Court. The answer to the questions could have a big impact on employer's payroll practices.
Mandatory sexual harassment for supervisors is not enough.
California Court of Appeal issues new decision on PAGA and agreements to arbitrate.
By this time of year your company's holiday party planning is likely in full swing. One question employers confront around this time of year is whether to serve alcoholic beverages at holiday parties.
Employers need to consider disability accommodation under the ADA and FEHA before terminating employees unable to return from medical leave.
Last week the California Court of Appeal held that an employer's mandatory arbitration policy was unenforceable because it was unconscionable (i.e. too one-sided and unfair to be enforced). The opinion is a good reminder that simply having an arbitration agreement does not need mean it will be enforceable when a dispute arises.
New amendments to CFRA require employers with 20 or more employees to provide up to 12-weeks protected leave for baby bonding.
New section of California Labor Code will make it unlawful for employers in California to ask applicants about their pay history.