An issue that has long plagued employers in California is whether time an employee spends on the employer’s premises making their way to or from their worksite is compensable. We have seen a spike in lawsuits raising this...more
The California Supreme Court released an opinion in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks Inc., finding that the exclusive remedy provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”) do not bar a non-employee’s recovery for...more
On May 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court released an opinion finding that California’s whistleblower protection statute (Labor Code section 1102.5(b)) applies when an employee “blows the whistle” on activity that is...more
Reversing a court of appeal decision that had been welcome news for employers, the California Supreme Court held today in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, S259172, that the term “regular rate of compensation,” used for...more
Ever since the California Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision in Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), we have been monitoring its application by the lower courts. On October 8,...more
10/16/2019
/ Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Dynamex ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Independent Contractors ,
IWC ,
Joint Employers ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Retroactive Application ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
As we previously reported, on May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, No. 17-16096, held that the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc....more
8/21/2019
/ ABC Test ,
Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Gig Economy ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
Retroactive Application ,
Wage and Hour
On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Goonewardene v. ADP, Inc., S238941 that a payroll service provider cannot be held liable for errors it makes in issuing paychecks to workers of companies...more
2/12/2019
/ Amended Complaints ,
Breach of Contract ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Civil Liability ,
Clerical Errors ,
Demurrers ,
Duty of Care ,
False Advertising ,
Labor Code ,
Negligence ,
Negligent Misrepresentation ,
Payroll Companies ,
Reversal ,
Third-Party Beneficiaries ,
Unfair Competition ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders ,
Wrongful Termination
On July 26, 2018, in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation held that the federal "de minimis doctrine" does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor...more
7/27/2018
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Starbucks ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
On March 5, 2018, in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California clarified how employers must calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of compensating an...more