Employers which use background checks in their hiring process without obtaining written authorization may wish to review their practices. The California Supreme Court has rejected an argument that employers could not...more
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 Supreme Court established a new three-part test to determine whether a purported independent contractor should be classified as an employee covered by California’s Wage Orders. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v....more
5/7/2018
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Classification ,
Delivery Drivers ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California, the California Supreme Court clarified how a flat sum bonus – a bonus that is independent of the number of hours worked by an employee – must be enhanced to comply with...more
California employers must allow their employees to take one day of rest per each workweek, unless they work less than 30 hours per week or each shift in that workweek is 6 hours or less, the California Supreme Court decided...more