On January 9, 2014, the Senate reintroduced a bill (S218), which would amend the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to make it a civil rights violation for an employee to be fired or otherwise discriminated against because...more
In 2012, employers awaited the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court with the bated-breath anticipation of a presidential election, or an Olympic luge race. And, boy, was it worth...more
Forgive me for taking the FCPA Paparazzi to task but when they deserve it, they deserve it.
A quick diversion — I often am asked by fellow bar members and commenters if I am referring to them as being a member of the...more
As we recently reported here, there have been a number of appellate decisions ordering class certification based on the existence of an employer’s companywide policy – all while overlooking numerous individualized questions...more
Long-distance trucking can be a very dangerous business for drivers and passengers in nearby vehicles. Trucker Andrew Bokelman recently learned this lesson firsthand in a most tragic way. In November 2013, Bokelman was...more
Contractors and other employers of outdoor workers are affected by the amended California Labor Code, effective January 1, 2014, that provides expanded protection to outdoor workers. Specifically, California Labor Code...more
Back in October, we reviewed a number of California cases that, for the most part, denied certification in cases in which certification would have largely been a foregone conclusion only a few years ago. The first few days of...more
As the new year begins, California employers, already weary from added wage and hour laws and regulations enacted over the past several years, have yet more to comply with. Here are the highlights....more
While 2013 was marked by some novel and interesting judicial and administrative decisions, including Quicken Loans (in which the National Labor Relations Board invalidated certain common employee handbook policies), Vance v....more
The current version of Labor Code section 226.7 provides a penalty of one hour's pay for each day that an employee is required to work during any required meal or rest period. Cal-OSHA regulations require employers of certain...more
Two restaurants in California have been fined $1.9 million for a variety of wage and hour violations as the result of an investigation by state and federal labor agencies.
The fines mark the latest example of joint...more
Illinois wage laws like the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and One Day Rest in Seven Act (ODRISA) require employers to maintain certain records for each employee, such as time records of hours worked, records showing the...more
Companies with employees in California will recall last year's landmark California Supreme Court decision in Brinker v. Superior Court (April 12, 2012), which confirmed that employers need only "permit" hourly employees to...more
Despite blockbuster cases like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 527 (Cal. 2012), California remains a hotbed of employment class litigation as a...more
In Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed that employee wage and hour and meal break cases may be suitable for class certification even where...more
Following the California Supreme Court’s Brinker ruling (April 2012 Employment Alert) that a California employer satisfies its meal/rest period obligations by “providing” rather than “ensuring” employees take rest and meal...more
On September 25, 2013, Governor Brown signed AB 10 into law, raising California’s minimum wage from $8 per hour today to $10 per hour by 2016.
The bill will raise the minimum wage in two separate one-dollar...more
California employers should be aware that Labor Code Sections 1030, et. seq., provide a number of rules about lactation accommodation in the workplace. Specifically, employers are required to provide a reasonable amount of...more
After the tortuous appellate process that finally resulted in the seminal California Supreme Court Brinker Restaurant Corporation1 decision defining the legal duty to provide a meal period and authorize rest breaks, you might...more
In Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by certifying a meal break subclass, defined as all past and present employees who (a) worked more than...more
Last year, in Brinkley v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court decided the important issue of whether employers must make sure that employees take their breaks or simply provide opportunity for break time. The...more
After the renowned remand from the California Supreme Court, the Hohnbaum plaintiffs in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) sought to certify meal period claims alleging that all California...more
Last week began this series of five posts to highlight five developments from this past summer in the area of social media and employment law. In the final Part 5 today: The discoverability of private social media posts in...more
An employee sleeps on the job, then insists his employer is obligated to wake him up. The employer terminates the employee; the employee sues. Open and shut case, right? Not so fast.
Originally published on HR.BLR.com...more
One can only imagine the outcome the plaintiffs' attorneys were anticipating: a case against the financial industry, involving non-exempt employees subject to an auto-deduct policy for meal periods, in the Southern District...more
Back to Top