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: 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: 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: 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
Seyfarth Synopsis: California employers must use the formula prescribed by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual to calculate overtime on flat sum bonuses, not the bonus overtime formula used under federal law....more