On April 7, 2020, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti suspended a paid sick leave ordinance by the Los Angeles City Council and signed an emergency order providing for mandatory paid sick leave for many large employers with essential employees working in the City of Los Angeles (L.A. Supplemental PSL), effective immediately. Existing Los Angeles City … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court ruled on March 12, 2020 that an individual plaintiff’s settlement of their claims against an employer for purported wage and hour violations does not deprive that plaintiff of standing as an authorized representative in a Private Attorney General’s Act (PAGA) action. PAGA deputizes an employee to file a lawsuit for purported … Continue Reading
On March 27, 2020, the Los Angeles City Council approved a new paid sick leave ordinance (L.A. Ordinance), to remain in effect until December 31, 2020, which supplements federal bill H.R. 6201, known as the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The FFCRA provides for paid sick leave and paid family leave entitlements to companies … Continue Reading
On March 19, 2020, governor of the state of California, Gavin Newsom, issued Executive Order N-33-20 (California Executive Order), effective immediately until further notice. This California Executive Order requires all individuals living in the state of California to stay home, except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, as … Continue Reading
Employers are facing increasingly difficult business decisions as a result of COVID-19 and, in developing a plan of action, must take care to avoid the many risks for wage and hour litigation that may be asserted in the wake of those decisions, especially as they relate to the execution of temporary layoffs or furloughs. On … Continue Reading
In addition to considerations under federal law and California’s wage and hour laws, California employers should consider privacy, harassment and discrimination laws that are unique to California. California laws tend to be more protective of employees than federal counterparts and these differences may impact how an employer needs to respond to coronavirus concerns. Privacy Unlike … Continue Reading
In addition to considerations under federal law, employers with employees in California should consider additional wage and hour issues that are unique to California. The Labor Commissioner’s Office has issued an FAQ to provide guidance on issues related to COVID-19. If an exempt salaried employee performs any work during the week, that employee should be … Continue Reading
Beginning January 1, 2020, an individual’s deadline to exhaust their administrative remedies through advancing a charge of unlawful workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH) will be extended from one year to three years. Assembly Bill 9, known as the Stop Harassment and Reporting Extension (SHARE) Act, … Continue Reading
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom officially signed a bill expanding protected leave rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to flight crew employees. We covered this issue in more detail here. The new law will allow flight crew employees to be eligible for CFRA protected leave with certain conditions.… Continue Reading
The California Legislature has recently passed a new bill to expand the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to flight deck and cabin crew employees (pilots and flight attendants). The new bill conforms California’s CFRA to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) with regard to protected leave. Currently under the CFRA, employees are eligible … Continue Reading
As we have previously reported here, California Assembly Bill 5 (the bill) is slated to codify the California Supreme Court’s 2018 landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, requiring companies to apply the “ABC” test in classifying their workers. The ABC test requires that workers be considered “employees” instead of … Continue Reading
On July 3, California became the first state to pass legislation that bans discrimination based on natural hairstyles. Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the CROWN Act (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair). The CROWN Act amends the state’s Government Code and Education Code to define “race or ethnicity” as “inclusive of … Continue Reading
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
