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
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 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
Although California Labor Code section 218.5 mandates an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action for the nonpayment of wages, the recent decision in Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC,...more
On March 12, 2020, in addressing an issue of first impression, the California Supreme Court in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (S246911), held that employees do not lose standing to pursue a claim under the Labor...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
It is well-known among employers that employees must be reimbursed for necessary expenditures and losses they incur in the discharge of their duties. (See Labor Code § 2802.) California Labor Code sections 6401 and 6403 go...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 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 McLean v. State of California, et al., Case No. S221554, published August 18, 2016, the Supreme Court of California held that Labor Code sections 202 and 203, which govern prompt payment of an employee’s final wages, apply...more
On June 28, 2016, in Rogelio Ramos v. Manuel Garcia (“Ramos”) (Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00037990-CU-OE-CTL), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reaffirmed that under Labor Code Section 218.5 an...more
In USS-Posco Industries v. Floyd Case (Ct. of Appeal A140457), published January 26, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District enforced an agreement requiring an employee to repay the costs of employer paid...more
The Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued its determination in a dispute over utilization review in its opinion of January 5, 2016, Kirk King et al. v. CompPartners, Inc. et al, 2016 S. O. S. In...more
In Vebr v. Culp (Filed 10/28/2015, No. G050730), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of homeowners, where an employee of an unlicensed painting company was injured...more
11/3/2015
/ Burden of Proof ,
Contractor's License ,
Homeowners ,
Labor Code ,
Negligence ,
Negligent Supervision ,
Painting Contractors ,
Premises Liability ,
Rebuttable Presumptions ,
Respondeat Superior ,
Summary Judgment ,
Unlicensed Contractors