California has a slew of new employment laws that went into effect this week.
Court of Appeal issues new ruling on tipping law.
The Court of Appeal clarified for employers the proper method for calculating meal and rest break premium pay. In Ferra v. Lowes Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the court held that “regular rate of compensation,” as used in Labor Code Section 226.7 governing premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks, means an employee’s base hourly wage, not the "regular rate of pay," that is required to be used when paying overtime wages.
Who’s in Charge Here?: Ninth Circuit Finds Franchisor Not Liable as Joint Employer in a Wage and Hour Lawsuit Filed by Franchisee’s Employees
Recently, in Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., the Ninth Circuit found that a franchisor lacked sufficient control over the franchisee's employees to be liable as a joint employer for alleged violations of California wage and hour laws. Notably, the franchisor avoided liability despite some evidence indicating the franchisor had knowledge that the franchisee was violating wage and hour laws.
Give me a Break: Employer’s Failure to Pay Break Penalties Alone Does Not Necessarily Lead to Derivative Late Pay and Wage Statement Penalties
An employer can be liable for missed rest and meal break penalties without it being a failure to pay wages giving rise to derivative wage statement and late pay claims.
California Supreme Court ruling clarifies that civil penalty of unpaid wages is not recoverable under PAGA.
California Supreme Court rejects another employee arbitration agreement.
Employees cannot sue for conversation to recover unpaid wages.
PAGA Claims can't be split between arbitration and court, even when underlying wages are sought as a penalty.
Dynamex expanded by Ninth Circuit and DLSE.
Ambiguous Arbitration Agreements?: SCOTUS Holds that Ambiguity is Insufficient to Compel Class Arbitration
The United States Supreme Court issued a highly-anticipated ruling in an employment matter earlier this week.
Religious employees are not necessarily ministers exempt from wage and hour laws.
Castle Law: California Employment Counsel wins at trial for client in class action misclassification case.
New Court of Appeal decision holds that employers are required to pay reporting time pay even if all an employee is required to do is call in to check if they actually need to work a shift.
Ever since Harvey Weinstein was exposed as a sexual predator, and the #metoo movement was born, efforts are being made locally and nationally to prevent workplace sexual harassment and abuse. Legislators in California have embraced the #metoo movement, with several new laws going into effect in ...
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.