The Labor Law Insider: Whistleblower Breaks Details of NLRB Mail Ballot Election Abuse
What's the Tea in L&E? Why You Need Policies for Temps and Other Contractors
Fintech Focus Podcast | Managing a Workforce in a Regulated Environment
(Podcast) California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
Exploring Employment Law Across Borders: Italy vs. US With White Lotus — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 31: Trade Secrets and Protecting Confidential Information with Jennie Cluverius of Maynard Nexsen
#WorkforceWednesday®: Staples Sued Over MA’s Lie Detector Notice, NJ’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code, 2024 Voting Leave Policies - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Employment Law Now VIII-149 - Part 2 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Are "Furries" Protected in the Workplace?
Employment Law Now VIII-148- Part 1 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
Back to School: 3 Essential Employee Trainings
The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 30: Plaintiff Legal Trends with Paul Porter of Cromer, Babb & Porter
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
The Burr Broadcast: OSHA Clarifies Work-Relatedness of Employee Injuries While Traveling
Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
Is an employee compensable for time spent on waiting and exit searches as "hours worked," even after clocking out? Per the California Supreme Court, it depends on the level of the employer's control over its employees....more
Recent large settlements by Facebook ($14.25 million) and Apple ($25 million) with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) sent a message to employers: the federal government can force...more
When Apple’s Penn Square Mall retail store in Oklahoma City voted on Friday to unionize, it became the tech giant’s second location in the United States to do so. Is this a trend for other Oklahoma employers? Count on...more
Union efforts to organize workers are on the rise. Most notably, several high-profile employers are at the forefront of recent union campaigns, including Amazon, Starbucks and now Apple. Employees at Amazon’s Staten Island,...more
Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 2020 WL 5225699 (9th Cir. 2020) - Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for,...more
Many employers with operations in California may already be familiar with Frlekin v. Apple, Inc. The heavily litigated case, first filed in 2013, involves claims that Apple retail employees are entitled to compensation for...more
The long-fought bag-check battle against Apple is coming to an end, and the employee class just won a major victory in California when a federal court of appeals ruled that the company must pay its workers for the time spent...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court delivered a surprising and monumental win for LGBTQ and transgender Americans, ruling 6-3 that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to protect “gay and transgender workers from workplace...more
Rising infection rates around the U.S. and the globe are worrying markets, as fear of a second wave of cases linked with the reopening of the economy freaks out traders....more
Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., -- Cal. -- (2020) - Summary: The time employees spent on Apple’s premises waiting for and undergoing a mandatory exit search of personal belongings was compensable as “hours worked” under Wage...more
Employers must pay their California employees for time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of employee’s bags, packages, and other personal items, even if these items were...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued a decision holding that the time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches is compensable time that must be paid to employees. The decision...more
Last week, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that employee exit searches constituted compensable “hours worked” under California law. Under its “Employee Package and Bag Searches” policy, Apple...more
On February 13, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., holding that the time employees spend waiting for their bags and other personal belongings to be screened at the end of a...more
In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question...more
Employees must be paid for time spent waiting for, and undergoing, searches of their bags, packages and personal technology devices, the California Supreme Court ruled February 13, 2020, in Amanda Frlekin, et al. v Apple,...more
On February 13, 2020, in a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court held in Frlekin v. Apple Inc., Case No. S243805, that time spent on an employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of...more
It is not unusual for businesses at risk of employee theft to implement security screenings for employees as they exit the employer’s facilities. Such screenings are especially common in industries where small, costly items...more
California wage laws have taken another alarming departure from federal standards. The highest state court recently held in Frlekin v. Apple that non-exempt employees must be paid for the time their bags and personal...more
- The California Supreme Court held that time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security inspections is compensable. - The decision rejects the holding by some lower courts that if employees could...more
Employees must be paid for time spent on their employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required searches of bags and other property voluntarily brought to work, according to the California Supreme Court’s ruling...more
The California Supreme Court clarified in a highly anticipated decision, that time spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory exit searches of personal items is considered compensable time under California’s Wage Orders....more
California wage-hour law is tougher on employers than federal law. Last Thursday, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court unanimously held that employees must be paid for time spent in mandatory, onsite...more
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court just held that the time spent by employees waiting for and undergoing security checks of bags and other personal items is compensable time under California law, even when...more
Today, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that time spent by non-exempt employees undergoing mandatory bag or other security checks is compensable work time under California law. The decision stands...more