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
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 March 19, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 95, renewing and expanding the state’s COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave, following the expiration of the federal Families First Coronavirus...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 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
The recent opinion in Scalia v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group, LLC (9th Cir., Mar. 2, 2020, No. 18-16493) 2020 WL 992564 (“Scalia”) considered the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and addressed...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
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2018 WL 6445360) was recently decided by California’s Court of Appeal, Fourth District, and adds further nuance to the state’s wage and hour laws. Donohue, a nurse recruiter formerly employed...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 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
After two years of discussion and comment from the public, employers and elected officials, the United State’s Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced the enactment of new regulations that radically change the number of...more
On April 5, 2016, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a law requiring all San Francisco businesses with more than 20 employees to supplement parental leave payments made by the State of California. The...more
On March 25, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held that an employer who successfully defeats an employee’s overtime claim brought pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194 is not entitled to...more
In Palacio v. Jan & Gail’s Care Homes, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal F070861), published December 7, 2015, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate Court ruled against a health care worker who sued to recover penalties for meal...more
In Safeway, Inc. v. Superior Court (Esparza), (C.A.2nd B255216) (L.A. Superior Court Case No. BC487830), published July 22, 2015, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District upheld a trial court’s class...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 Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (Nos. B243788 & B247392, filed 12/31/14), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held Labor Code section 226.7 prescribes only that an employee may not be...more
In Landers v. Quality Communications (9th Cir. 12-15890-1/26/15), the Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure finding...more
In Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (Juan Solares), Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. B256266, Filed January 21, 2015, the Court of Appeal held that the Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance ("Ordinance")...more