News & Analysis as of

New Public Employment Laws for 2015

Year in and year out, one thing is true: In California, there will always be new laws affecting employers, and 2015 is no exception. Below is a brief description of the laws that public sector employers need to be aware of...more

Have a Seat, Please!!

Now that the California Supreme Court crippled California employers covered under IWC Wage Order 4 (the catch-all Wage Order), in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. by making them retroactively liable for all on-call...more

Mendiola Decision Highlights a Key Issue - The Calculation of "Hours Worked"

The continuing stream of lawsuits challenging employers’ payroll practices is well-documented. A large portion of wage and hour lawsuits seek to recover overtime compensation that should have been paid to employees who were...more

California’s On-Site On-Call Employees Hit Jackpot

On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. that security guards employed at construction worksites under California Wage Order 4 – the catch-all wage order – are entitled...more

Employment Law - January 2015

U.S. Supreme Court: Security Screenings Not Compensable - Why it matters: In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that the time spent by...more

Sixth Circuit Revisits FLSA Compliance During Employee Meal Periods

In Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether casino security guards, required to remain on casino property during meal periods, monitor two-way radios, and respond to emergencies if...more

California Employment Law Notes - January 2015

$300,000 In Punitive Damages Upheld In Sexual Harassment Case Despite Nominal Damages Award - State of Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 2014 WL 6918577 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Angela Aguilar who worked in a copper mine...more

Employers Finally Get a Break—Court Reverses $90 Million Verdict and Holds That Employers Are Not Required to Relieve Employees of...

On December 31, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California held in an unpublished opinion that employers are not required to relieve employees of all duty during rest periods mandated by California state...more

California Supreme Court Holds On-Call Time For Security Guards Is Fully Compensable Under California Wage Orders

In Mendiola et al v. CPS Security Solutions, et al., (2015) 2015 WL 107082, the California Supreme Court held that security guards at a construction site were entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at their...more

Did You Know…No Sleeping Time Exclusion During 24-Hour Shifts When Employer Exercises Significant Control

In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that security guards working 24-hour shifts have to be paid for all 24 hours without carving out eight hours of sleeping time – meaning the entire...more

California Supreme Court Holds 24-Hour Security Guards Entitled to 24-Hours of Pay

Security guards who work eight hours per day, are on-call eight hours per day, and reside/sleep (off duty but on site) eight hours per day are entitled to be paid for the entire 24-hour time period, says the California...more

California Supreme Court Rules On-Duty Guards Entitled to Pay for On-Call and Sleep Time

On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the on-call hours for security guards who work 24-hour shifts constituted compensable hours worked. Further, the court ruled that the guards’...more

6th Circuit: Interruptions During Meal Period Do Not Automatically Render Time Compensable

Yesterday we told you about the California Court of Appeals' decision in which the court found that it was not unlawful for an employer to require its security guards to be "on call" during rest periods. The Sixth Circuit...more

Workplace policies and class action certification: key takeaways from two California cases

Is the California courts’ pendulum swinging back to a more balanced approached to employment class action certification? In the last two days, two seemingly similar cases were decided with very different results: Koval v....more

California Court of Appeals Allows On-Call Rest Breaks

In a striking move, the California Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion wherein it held that California law does not require employers to relieve employees of all duty during rest breaks....more

Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc: Opening the Door to Class Actions?

In Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a $187 million jury verdict in favor of class action plaintiffs. The rationale of the ruling raises the concern that Pennsylvania state courts may...more

West Virginia DOL Withdraws Proposed Emergency Wage and Hour Regulations

In welcome news for employers, the West Virginia Department of Labor (WVDOL) has withdrawn a set of emergency regulations that would have significantly revamped state wage and hour requirements and created conflicts with...more

Do Employers Have to Pay For All Time Worked? [Video]

Phoenix business law firm Jaburg Wilk Employment lawyer Kraig Marton discusses various employment law topics. For more information visit www.jaburgwilk.com....more

New Year, New Laws for Employment Lawyers

AB 1660 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees without valid California driver’s licenses. See Govt C §12926, Veh C §§1653.5, 12800.7, 12801.9. Under current law, the DMV has to issue a...more

Automatic Meal Period Deductions and the FLSA [Wage and Hour FAQ]

As you know, under the FLSA, “bona fide meal periods” are not regarded as work time and can be unpaid. For a break to qualify as a bona fide meal period, “[t]he employee must be completely relieved from duty for purposes of...more

California Employment Law Update: What’s New for 2015?

The California Legislature was unusually active this year. Significantly, California introduced mandatory paid sick live, created new “unfair immigration-related practices” and expanded potential liability for employers who...more

Brinker for Dummies

On November 13, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued a decision in Walgreen Co. Overtime Cases. The opinion explains the meaning of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court as it applies to the...more

FAAAA Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Period Requirements

In Godfrey v, Oakland Port Services Corp., which was decided on October 28, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued a published decision holding that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA)...more

Quirky Question #242 – Policing Break and Time Records Pays Off

Quirky Question - We are a California employer. After all the publicity surrounding class actions over meal and break periods, we instituted automatic warnings if employees take too long or too short a meal or rest...more

German Employment News: German Employer’s Obligation to Compensate for Break Times if Break Times Have Not Been Properly Allocated

The Regional Labour Court of Cologne (Regional Court) stated in a decision in late November 2013 that a German employer has the obligation to allocate break times of employees in an orderly manner, and presented the possible...more

62 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3