In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California Court of Appeal answered a question that many California employers may not have known even needed to be answered—whether California employees can prospectively waive their...more
On January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision clarifying the applicable standard employers must meet in cases involving exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In an...more
As 2024 wraps up and we look forward to 2025, below is a summary of upcoming changes in employment law that may impact employers in Oregon, Washington, and California. Many of the following updates go into effect on January...more
12/20/2024
/ California ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Oregon ,
Paid Leave ,
Paid Time Off (PTO) ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Washington
A few weeks ago, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced a bill to implement a 32-hour workweek. While such a law is a long way from becoming a reality, it does raise interesting questions concerning exactly what a 32-hour...more
Seemingly with every passing day the California legislature adds more obligations (and opportunities for costly missteps) to California employers. This time we are discussing California Senate Bill 1162, dubbed California’s...more
10/26/2022
/ California ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Job Applicants ,
Labor Reform ,
New Legislation ,
Pay Data ,
Pay Discrimination ,
Pay Transparency ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services and decided two critical questions: first, whether an employee is entitled to “waiting time...more
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District created a split in authority when they held that wage-and-hour lawsuits brought under California’s Private...more
Way back on October 10, 2019, California Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which essentially made it unlawful for California employers to require workers or job applicants to execute arbitration agreements...more
The California Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (“Sullivan”) and its more recent decisions in Ward v. United Airlines (“Ward”) and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Oman”) provided employers with a...more
The public health crisis caused by COVID-19 has caused lawmakers up and down California to consider new and previously unheard of ways to protect employees. While most of these methods have involved protections for existing...more
The 2020 presidential election, coupled with nationwide civil unrest and a global pandemic, is creating a lot of conversation in employees’ personal and professional lives. In a February 2020 survey, employees reported...more
California is like every other state in that it does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off. Unlike in most other states, however, if an employer does provide employees with paid time off, then...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
From the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex to the passage of dozens of new employment laws, 2019 was an important year for California employers. While some of these new laws were discussed here, this...more
1/8/2020
/ ABC Test ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Dynamex ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Regulations ,
Lactation Accommodation ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
As 2019 comes to an end, employers should know about important new obligations that will ring in their new year. Our Labor & Employment experts offer some guidance on critical developments in Oregon, Washington, California,...more
12/20/2019
/ Arbitration Agreements ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Definition ,
FEHA ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Labor Regulations ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Paid Family Leave Law ,
Posting Requirements ,
Severance Agreements ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour ,
Work Schedules
With its decision last year in Dynamex, the California Supreme Court fundamentally changed the test for determining whether workers are properly classified as either employees or independent contractors. Specifically, and as...more
6/7/2019
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Gig Economy ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
Risk Assessment ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
Many classes of California workers are entitled to “reporting time pay,” which is partial compensation given to employees who go to work expecting to work a certain number of hours but are deprived of working the full time...more
Almost six months ago, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex, which dramatically altered the landscape pertaining to the classification of California workers as either employees or independent...more
In Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the California Supreme Court determined that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California wage claims. While this ruling does not completely eviscerate this legal defense for...more
7/30/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Civil Code ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Labor Code ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Starbucks ,
Timekeeping ,
Wage and Hour
For almost 30 years, California courts have primarily used a subjective, multi-factor test in determining whether a worker was properly classified as an employee or independent contractor. In March of this year, the...more
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee, the California Supreme Court created a new employee-friendly test for determining whether workers are properly classified as employees or independent contractors. While providing a...more
5/2/2018
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Delivery Drivers ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Gig Economy ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California, the California Supreme Court determined how employers must calculate an employee’s overtime pay rate when the employee earns a bonus during a single pay period. While...more
In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the California Supreme Court answered three questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning California’s “day of rest” statutes. The Court’s decision clarifies a significant ambiguity for employers...more
In Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that employers are prohibited from implementing “on-call” rest breaks. This holding led the Supreme Court to reinstate an...more
On September 12, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1066. The bill, which is the first of its kind in the nation, will entitle California farmworkers to the same overtime pay as most other hourly workers in...more