California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
In a welcome win for employers, the California Supreme Court recently blocked a PAGA plaintiff’s attempt to intervene and object to another PAGA plaintiff’s proposed settlement as a matter of right, in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether trial courts can dismiss Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims as...more
In Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions need not satisfy class action requirements, and in the fourteen years since, PAGA...more
Summary - Emergency Rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitations for six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is valid and operates to extend the time to file a civil suit for a PAGA claim as well as the time period to...more
The California Supreme Court sides with employees in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, finding derivative claims available for waiting time and pay stub penalties available for meal and rest break violations. This...more
On February 7, 2022 a California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hutcheson v. The Superior Court of Alameda County (UBS Financial Services, Inc.). The case addresses the relation back doctrine in the context of a...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that will increase dramatically California employers’ potential liability for missed meal, rest, and recovery breaks. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,...more
Scalia v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group, LLC, 951 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2020) - Summary: Neither the Fair Labor Standards Act nor federal common law provide an employer with a right to seek contribution or...more
ZB, N.A. v. Super Ct. of San Diego Cty., 8 Cal. 5th 175, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228 (2019) - Summary: Employee may not recover unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 through PAGA. Facts: Plaintiff Lawson worked for...more
Ever since the California Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision in Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), we have been monitoring its application by the lower courts. On October 8,...more
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified two questions of state law to the California Supreme Court: 1. Does the absence of a formal policy regarding meal and rest breaks violate...more
This month’s key California employment law cases involve reporting time pay and potential liability of payroll companies for wage and hour violations. ...more
This month’s key employment law cases address meal periods and payment of wages....more
This month’s key employment law cases address the test for independent contractor status, the legality of an incentive compensation system, and personal liability for wage and hour violations....more
This month’s key employment law cases address pre-employment physicals, appeals from California Labor Commissioner awards, and background checks. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2018)...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more
Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that California labor statutes and wage orders do not incorporate federal de minimis work exceptions. Yet, the Court declined to define when, if...more
On July 26, 2018, in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation held that the federal "de minimis doctrine" does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor...more
This month’s two key California employment law cases are both significant decisions involving wage and hour laws. Alvarado v. DART Container Corp. of Cal., 4 Cal. 5th 542 (2018) - Summary: California formula for...more
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of “day of rest” claims brought by two former hourly employees against retail giant Nordstrom. The court determined that the employees were not...more
This month’s key California employment law cases involve wage and hour (payment of wages) and civil procedure (class and representative actions). Wage and Hour - Payment of Wages: Minnick v. Auto. Creations, Inc., 2017 WL...more
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled today that plaintiffs in lawsuits brought pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), can seek the contact information for their fellow...more
On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued a critical decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2016 D.J. 12608 (2016), relating to California’s rest period obligations. The California Supreme Court...more