In Thai v. International Business Machines (IBM) Corp. No. A165390 (July 11, 2023), the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, held that under Labor Code section 2802(a), the employer is required...more
On June 17, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles), issued an opinion in Meza v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (B317119, June 17, 2022) __ Cal.App.5th ___. In this...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (S266001, Jan. 27, 2022), addressing the Ninth Circuit’s question of the proper method for presenting and evaluating a claim of...more
In the matter of Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc., et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 19, 2022, No. B306292) 2022 WL 167770, the Court of Appeal considered the following issue: Whether the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s...more
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (“Ferra”), the Supreme Court held that the term “regular rate of compensation” under Labor Code section 226.7, which requires payment for not providing an employee with a compliant meal,...more
On Thursday, September 17, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1159. The bill replaces Newsom’s Executive Order N-62-20 and extends the presumption of industrial injury to certain employees who fulfill the criteria...more
As soon as Governor Newsom signs the bill, California employers must abide by SB 1159 which creates for some employees an expanded presumption that COVID-19 caused illness or death qualifies for workers’ compensation...more
On April 1, 2020, the California Court of Appeal, Second District (Los Angeles) in McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. (B290869), addressed the issue of whether an employee’s right to paid time off (under an...more
California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment...more
The California Legislature has enacted strict requirements regulating the content that appears on employee wage statements. Labor Code section 226 sets forth the requirements in an extensive list, such as the requirements...more
In Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (S238941), the California Supreme Court has created new protections for payroll companies in lawsuits involving claims of labor violations. Although previous case law has held that employees with...more
2/26/2019
/ Breach of Contract ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Duty of Care ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Negligence ,
Negligent Misrepresentation ,
Payroll Companies ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
In the matter of Jimenez-Sanchez v. Dark Horse Express, Inc. (F072599), the court confirmed that employees paid on a piece-rate basis required additional, separate compensation for rest breaks. The defendant in the case was...more
In Furry v. East Bay Publishing (A151986, Filed 12/12/2018), a California appeals court held that imprecise evidence by an employee can provide a sufficient basis for damages when the employer fails to keep accurate records...more
In M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 26, 2017, No. D070150) 2017 WL 4831603, a hotel housekeeper (known as M.F. to preserve her privacy) was assaulted and raped at work by a trespasser known to...more
In Charles T. Merrick v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., et. al. (No. 14-56853, filed 8/16/17), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied a nuanced analysis within the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting...more
It is well-established that the workers’ compensation system serves as the exclusive remedy for an employee who suffers injuries arising during the course and scope of employment, including psychiatric injuries. Recently,...more
Workers’ compensation litigation often is driven by disagreement over the apportionment of permanent disability. A vast body of case law exists reflecting the courts’ efforts to resolve conflicts between the provisions of the...more
In Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, (No. B275225, filed 4/19/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held absent evidence an employee’s resignation was coerced, an...more
In Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, (No. B269657, filed 2/28/17) the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held employers must separately compensate their commission based employees for mandatory...more
In Lidia Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P., (Superior Court No. 37-2015-00017074-CI-OE-CTL), published October 20, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District unanimously rejected an employee’s argument that her...more
In Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal A142219), published August 17, 2015, the Court of Appeal held that an employer’s arbitration clause which allowed only the employer to file lawsuits for certain...more
In Mies v. Sephora U.S.A., Inc., No. A139410, published February 26, 2015 (Mies), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District held that a trial court’s broad discretion to rule on class certification encompasses...more
In Gerard v. Orange County Memorial Medical Center, 2015 Cal.App. LEXIS 132, the Court of Appeal found Wage Order No. 5, Section 11(D) of Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") wage order No. 5-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., title 8,...more
In Cruise v. Kroger Co., the Court of Appeal held a clear arbitration clause in an employment application, standing alone, was sufficient to establish the existence of an agreement between the employee and employer to...more
In Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 107082, published January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court held that: (1) on-call hours at a worksite represented “hours worked” for overtime purposes when the employer...more