Under the wage orders issued by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” Although...more
In Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., five former Shift Supervisors brought a putative class action against CVS under the Massachusetts Wage Act, contending they were required to work through their unpaid breaks. Specifically,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: At a time when the Massachusetts meal break landscape is increasingly friendly to employees, a federal judge in the state recently denied class certification in a meal break case, Romulus, et al. v. CVS...more
The effects of the California Supreme Court’s latest interpretation to provide seating to workers are beginning to show, as the United States District Court for the Central District of California recently approved a $700,000...more
LA Doubles Down on Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Increase - Why it matters - Already facing new California employment-related requirements—including the adoption of mandatory sick leave and an uptick in the minimum...more
Kilby V. CVS Pharmacy: The California Supreme Court In The Driver’s Seat Clarifies Seating Standards In The Workplace - Most of the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s industry and occupational wage orders...more
To sit or not to sit, that is the question. And now the California Supreme Court has given us an answer. Well, sort of. They have told us how to find the answer. Even that’s a stretch. Pull up a seat and I will explain. ...more
California’s wage orders, which regulate working conditions for most industries and occupations, require that “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the...more
California wage orders – state-issued employment standards having the force of law – require all working employees to be provided with “suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” On April...more
In Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-1937, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20548 (1st Cir. Oct. 24, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the conditions triggering a defendant’s 30-day window to remove a case to...more
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the thirty-day time period for removal under CAFA is triggered when the plaintiffs’ complaint or plaintiffs’ subsequent other papers provide defendants with sufficient...more