A California court has held that employees required to call their employers before a shift to determine whether they are assigned to work may be entitled to reporting time pay on days when they are not actually put to work....more
2/14/2019
/ Appeals ,
Call-In Pay ,
Class Action ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
IWC ,
Mercantile Industry ,
On-Call Employees ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders ,
Work Schedules
Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that California labor statutes and wage orders do not incorporate federal de minimis work exceptions. Yet, the Court declined to define when, if...more
7/31/2018
/ Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Federal Labor Laws ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Reversal ,
Starbucks ,
State Labor Laws ,
Summary Judgment ,
Timekeeping ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
The California Court of Appeal has held that the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notice (WARN) Act requires that employers notify employees of temporary layoffs, even if anticipated to last less than six...more
An employer’s refusal to accept a former employee’s resignation rescission request is not an adverse employment action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), according to a California Court of Appeal...more
On April 4, 2016, a California Court of Appeal set new precedent in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, opining that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) may require employers to reasonably...more
On July 21, 2014, a California Court of Appeal held that overtime exempt status is not undermined by requiring employees to use accrued leave for absences of less than half a day. ...more