Companies in the transportation industry with operations in California have some positive news to celebrate. On May 3, 2019, in Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment and dismissed a truck driver’s meal and rest period claims, finding that they were preempted by the … Continue Reading
In April 2018, the California Supreme Court turned worker classification on its head when it decided Dynamex Operations West Inc v. Superior Court (Dynamex). In Dynamex, the court adopted a three-factor “ABC” test for analyzing misclassification claims under the California Wage Orders. Under the ABC test, for an employer to show that workers were properly … Continue Reading
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court struck a blow to class action plaintiffs subject to Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)-covered arbitration agreements when it concluded that a court may not compel class arbitration when the agreement is silent regarding the availability of such proceedings. Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l, 559 U.S. 662 (2010). “[A] party … Continue Reading
California companies have been required to reconsider their use of independent contractors since the state’s Supreme Court outlined the new ABC test in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. Unlike the prior Borello test, which involved the balancing of numerous factors, the ABC test requires that a company establish all of the following: (A) … Continue Reading
On March 29, 2019, a California Court of Appeal held that a trial court did not retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce a settlement agreement after dismissal of the underlying lawsuit because the parties did not comply with the strict requirements of section 664.6. At first blush, the decision in … Continue Reading
In a recent decision involving retail store employees, the Second Appellate District Court held that employees subject to on-call scheduling must be paid reporting time pay, even when the employee only has to make a short call to determine if they are needed, but does not physically report to work. The case, Skylar Ward v. … Continue Reading
California has long been known as a state that bans post-employment non-compete and customer non-solicitation agreements for its employees, absent very limited exceptions related to the sale of a business and trade secret protection. Employee non-solicitation provisions were believed to be the last post-employment restrictive covenant that California law still generally allowed, assuming they were … Continue Reading
San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) continues to raise the cost of doing business at the foot of the Golden Gate by requiring employers to provide some of the most generous benefits to employees in the United States. The OLSE has amended certain of its rules regarding employer obligations, and will begin enforcing … Continue Reading
In an important decision for California health care employers, the California Supreme Court recently confirmed that certain health care employees are allowed to waive their second meal breaks even if they work more than 12 hours in a shift. History of the Gerard litigation In 2015, the California Court of Appeal shocked health care employers … Continue Reading
Today, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., No. S234969 (Cal. July 26, 2018), regarding whether the long-standing de minimis doctrine adopted under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) applies to claims for unpaid wages for minute increments of time under the California Labor Code. The majority opinion … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. S222732 (Cal. April 30, 2018), adopting a new legal standard to be used in determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors. Specifically, in the unanimous Dynamex … Continue Reading
In part I of this two part series reviewing the employment law class of 2017 we focused on developments in discrimination, anti-retaliation and discharge, hiring and background checks, and workplace health and safety. In part II we will focus on developments in wage and hour law, leave laws, industry-specific regulations, and California’s recent legislation affecting … Continue Reading
Amend, extend and clarify: the 2016 legislative session was not so much about creating new rights and responsibilities under California employment law, but more about expanding and addressing lingering questions that stem from existing workplace mandates. However, don’t be fooled by the lack of “new” regulations. By amending many of California’s complex existing laws, the … Continue Reading
California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed AB 2337, strengthening the job protections for victims of domestic violence, and ensuring those who work for employers with 25 or more employees are notified of protected time-off rights for domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, without threat of termination or retaliation. The Bill’s author, Assemblymember Autumn Burke (representing … Continue Reading
San Francisco has just given the employees of its resident companies quite the baby shower gift. On April 5, 2016, San Francisco passed its Paid Parental Leave law. The local ordinance will leverage off of the California Paid Family Leave law passed in 2004, which allows employees to take time off to bond with a … Continue Reading
Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court, in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, clarified that the suitable seating requirement in several California wage orders may entitle employees to a seat when their tasks can be accomplished while seated. Specifically, the language states: “All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the … Continue Reading
Not to be outdone by New York’s pending move to increase its minimum wage to $15.00 per hour for non-exempt employees in the coming years, on April 4, 2016, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that will increase California’s statewide minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by 2022. The bill sets out … Continue Reading
California law requires that employers authorize and permit their employees to take rest periods based on the total hours worked in a day. Employers must authorize and permit 10 minutes net rest time for every four hours worked or major fractions of an hour. If the workday is less than three and one-half hours, then … Continue Reading
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits harassment and discrimination in the workplace that is based on one or more of the categories commonly protected by local, state and federal discrimination laws. On April 1, 2016, new regulations interpreting and expanding upon the statutory language go into effect. Below, we provide a summary of some … Continue Reading
California is home to a burgeoning nontraditional workforce. The state’s laws and regulations recognize many types of engagements beyond the traditional employer-employee relationship, so long as the rules and regulations that establish and maintain these arrangements are respected. This program will examine just how companies and nontraditional workers get the job done, while remaining compliant … Continue Reading
Each year, the California legislature – historically the most active of state regulators – reexamines the relationship between employers and their workforces and emerges with a multitude of employment law protections. 2015 was no exception. Lawmakers created novel and expansive measures, affecting companies throughout the state in varying degrees. Some of the laws, most of which take … Continue Reading
When California’s Fair Pay Act goes into effect January 1, 2016, the state’s employers will be subject to the strictest equal pay law in the country. The new law is part of an increased effort on both the federal and state levels to ensure equal pay between men and women, across the county. Recently, both … Continue Reading
Governor Brown got it right when he vetoed Assembly Bill 465, which would have restricted the enforcement of arbitration agreements requiring the arbitration of claims brought against employers for violations under the California Labor Code. The proposed bill would have made it unlawful to use such provisions as a condition of employment. The governor indicated … Continue Reading
The California legislature recently submitted a bill (AB 465) to Governor Jerry Brown that deters employers from using arbitration agreements that include a provision requiring the arbitration of claims brought against employers for violations under the California Labor Code. AB 465 provides that any waiver of rights, penalties, remedies, forums and procedures established by the … Continue Reading
