The Burr Broadcast: FLSA Overtime Exemption
What's the Tea in L&E? Alert: Salary Threshold for Exempt Employees Increases to $58,656
VIDEO: Major Changes Coming for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday: DOL’s Final Rule on Worker Classification, NLRB Joint-Employer Rule Challenged, SpaceX Sues NLRB - Employment Law This Week®
The Burr Broadcast: New Independent Contractor Rule
DE Under 3: US DOL's WHD Published Its “Employee or Independent Contractor” Classification Final Rule
The Burr Broadcast: Proposed Expanded Overtime Rule
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Pay Exemptions
California Employment News: The Basics of Pay Exemptions
Podcast: California Employment News - Department of Labor Guidance on Telework
California Employment News: Department of Labor Guidance on Telework
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Focuses on Severance Agreements, Supreme Court Opens Overtime to HCEs, Ninth Circuit Rejects CA's Mandatory Arbitration Ban - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VII-126 - Invalidating Severance Agreements (and Other Important Developments)
The Labor Law Insider: Joint Employer Standard Changes: Beware, Part I
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
Running Successful and Legally Compliant Internships
DE Under 3: Trump Admin Independent Contractor Rule Back; Non-binary Reporting & the OFCCPs New Pay Equity Directive
#WorkforceWednesday: Independent Contractor Rule Reinstated, OFCCP Targets Pay Equity Audits, OSHA Focuses on Health Care Facilities - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast: Do You Have to Pay for Training Time?
Looking back at 2021 and ahead to 2022
Seyfarth Synopsis: While reversing a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer based on the de minimis doctrine, the Ninth Circuit held that the doctrine still can apply under the FLSA....more
In Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the circumstances under which donning and doffing activities by employees may be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). ...more
For decades, the Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized the impracticability of requiring Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) nonexempt employees to clock in exactly at the beginning of their scheduled shifts. In most...more
I read an interesting blog post by Seyfarth Shaw on a working time case in a call center. I have often blogged about working time cases, preliminary/postliminary cases, and have lamented that the de minimis doctrine, often...more
In Part 2 of our blog series highlighting some of the risks for employers when pay and time practices don’t comport with wage and hour laws, the case details and key takeaways below should provide West Coast employers...more
Although the unpaid time employees spent booting up their computers was relatively small, it was compensable and the employer failed to establish the practical administrative difficulty of estimating the time at issue, which...more
In this blog series, we’ll look at a variety of activities and discuss whether an employer has to pay its non-exempt (i.e., overtime-eligible) employees for their time spent engaging in them. We’ll focus on federal law, but...more
There have been a host of federal cases recently focusing on whether time spent waiting in security lines is compensable. Some have gone for the plaintiffs and others for the employer, as these cases are nuanced and...more
I have been writing about wage hour issues that are implicated or raised by the continuing COVID-19 situation. Well, here’s another one. I warn that as businesses start to open up (or not), employees (and, more to the point,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: With apologies to Dr. Seuss, we’ve penned an ode to the judicial chaos of the year just past, highlighted by three California Supreme Court decisions—Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., Dynamex Operations v....more
It’s hard to keep up with the news these days. It sometimes feels like you can’t step away from your phone, computer, or TV for more than an hour or so without a barrage of new information hitting the headlines—and you’re...more
Smartphones have changed the employment landscape. Non-exempt employees can communicate via text or email any time of day or night, and may be expected to. My habit in the evenings is to check my work email, even if only to...more
Starbucks to Face Suit Over De Minimis Time - Why it matters - A putative class action against Starbucks will move forward after the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit applied the reasoning of the California Supreme...more
This past summer, in a high-profile case brought against Starbucks, the California Supreme Court resolved an open question concerning compensable time. Or, at least it did to some extent. The court held that California...more
In July, the California Supreme Court announced that various provisions of the Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders did not incorporate the de minimis doctrine. According to that doctrine, some alleged wrongs are so trivial or...more
Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more
Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more
Once again, California's Supreme Court has underscored that California employment law can differ from federal law in significant, and typically more employee friendly, ways. In Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation,1 a...more
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking decision that severely limits employers’ ability to rely on the ‘de minimis’ doctrine as a defense to not paying for minimal increments of off-the-clock...more
The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more
Usually legislative and regulatory developments slow down in the summer months, which is good news because July brings more pressing matters than reading bills or proposed rules, like eating too many hot dogs or yelling at an...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more