California issues new decision on compensable nature of security searches.
What’s in a Name? Court of Appeal Green Lights Claim Against an Employer for Failure to Include Employer’s Legal Name on Wage Statements
California Pay Stubs Must Include Accurate Employer Name.
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.
PAGA Claims can't be split between arbitration and court, even when underlying wages are sought as a penalty.
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.
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.
California attempts to clarify it's ban on asking applicants about prior salary.
Failure to pay final pay timely must be willful for liability.
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.
Last week the California Supreme Court provided clarity to employers regarding how non-exempt employees who are paid bonuses should be paid.
Telecommuting policies are not without hidden dangers. Consider the risk and implement carefully to avoid potential liability.
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.