California Labor Code

Subscribe to California Labor Code

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 California Labor Code violations against their employer to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other similarly situated employees and the State of California. To pursue a PAGA action, the plaintiff must have standing as an “aggrieved employee.” PAGA defines an “aggrieved employee” as “any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.”

In Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., March 12, 2020, Case No. 5246911, Justin Kim, an employee of Reins International (Reins), brought a putative class action and PAGA representative action for Labor Code violations against his employer. While the case was pending, Reins moved to compel arbitration as to Kim’s individual claims and dismissed the class action claims based on the arbitration agreement. While the PAGA litigation remained in the trial court, the trial court stayed the action pending the arbitration of Kim’s individual claims. Kim ultimately settled his individual claims and dismissed them, leaving only the PAGA claim for resolution. Reins then moved for summary adjudication of the PAGA claim on the ground that Kim was no longer an aggrieved employee and his rights had been “completely redressed” by his own settlement and dismissal of his underlying claims. The trial court granted the dismissal and the Court of Appeals affirmed.Continue Reading California Supreme Court: Employees who settle their own wage and hour claims still have standing to pursue PAGA

An amendment to California Labor Code Section 1198.5 goes into effect on January 1, 2013, relating to employee access to personnel records.  At a current or former employee’s request, an employer must make the employee’s file available for inspection and — new for 2013 — provide a copy of an employee’s personnel records to that current/former employee or his/her representative.  (Prior law required only that copies of documents the employee had signed be provided to the employee.)  Employers may request reimbursement from the employee for the actual copying costs incurred and, if applicable, mailing costs.Continue Reading New for 2013: CA Employees Have the Right to a Copy of Their Personnel Files

Under California Labor Code 2751 (amended in 2012), effective January 1, 2013, employers must provide all commissioned employees who render services in California with a written contract detailing the method by which the commission shall be computed and paid.  This law applies to all employers (both in-state and out-of-state) who pay commissions to employees working in California. Continue Reading Got “Receipt”? Effective January 2013, Employers Must Have Written Contracts for Commissioned Employees Working In California

Tracking the trend of increased federal and state focus on the misclassification of workers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently applied California law to hold that plaintiffs were entitled to a trial on the merits against their former employer for improperly classifying its California drivers as independent contractors, notwithstanding that the…