The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more
5/8/2024
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Good Faith ,
Labor Code ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Rest and Meal Break ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18, 2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority as to whether trial courts have inherent authority to strike a PAGA...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: California Labor Code section 1102.5 protects employees who disclose what they believe to be violations of the law. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that such disclosures are protected even if the...more
5/31/2023
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
California ,
DLSE ,
Employment Litigation ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Labor Standards Enforcement ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies ,
Whistleblowers
Seyfarth Synopsis: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable federal regulations, percentage of earnings bonuses can be excluded from the calculation of the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Two new California laws are set to significantly affect the entertainment industry: one will deal a giant blow to productions and studios accustomed to hiring independent contractors; the other will give...more
12/13/2019
/ Dynamex ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Freelance Workers ,
Gig Economy ,
Graphic Designs ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Journalists ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Regulations ,
Misclassification ,
New Legislation ,
Photographs ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wages
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that the Labor Management Relations Act does not preempt claims under the Labor Code where a defense requires little more than referring to a collective bargaining...more
5/1/2019
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) ,
Contract Interpretation ,
Employment Litigation ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Labor Code ,
Labor-Managment Relations Act ,
Motion to Compel ,
Preemption ,
Reversal ,
Section 201 ,
Section 301 ,
Trial Court Orders ,
Unions ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Court of Appeal, in Savea v. YRC Inc., held that an employer complies with Labor Code section 226(a)(8) when the employing entity lists its fictitious business name on a wage statement rather than the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: An employer did not incur waiting time penalties for inadvertently misstating the amount of pay on a final paycheck, but was liable for its delay in correcting the error. And, by taking an appeal from a...more
California courts generally favor forum selection clauses entered into freely by parties and where enforcement is not unreasonable. This general principle is true even if the forum selection clause is “mandatory” and requires...more