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
Last week, on July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court in Castellanos v. State of California unanimously upheld Proposition 22, the 2020 ballot measure that allows gig economy businesses like Uber and Lyft to legally...more
On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the statewide ballot measure that classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors. Voters passed the law (also known as Proposition 22) in...more
On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Castellanos et al., v. State of California and Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, et al., upholding the 2020 voter initiative known as...more
On July 20, 2022, the California Supreme Court granted review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. G059860, which indicates that it may intend to address the questions of state law addressed by the...more
A federal court for the Central District of California in Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc. has ruled in favor of franchisor 7-Eleven and against four franchise owners who claimed they were employees under California law rather than...more
In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, by an overwhelming majority. Proposition 22 exempts certain app-based drivers from the requirements of California’s Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) by...more
On 30 April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued the seminal decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, adopting the “A-B-C Test” for determining independent contractor status in the state. The A-B-C...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a long-awaited decision on the question of whether AB5, California’s strict independent contractor misclassification statute, may be applied to motor carriers, or whether the...more
Employers grappling with independent-contractor classification had a busy 2020—and should expect a flurry of additional activity this year. Few areas in employment law are changing as rapidly. Last year, many concerned about...more
Q: Does the “ABC test” for independent contractor status in the state of California apply retroactively? ...more
Last November, California voters convincingly (almost 60% supporting) enacted Proposition 22. This Proposition was a well-funded effort that allows gig drivers working for companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash to avoid the...more
The California Supreme Court just declined to take up the petition filed by a group of app-based rideshare and delivery drivers to hold as unconstitutional the voter-approved ballot measure that ensured that app-based...more
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the ABC Test announced in a California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) could apply to franchise...more
The California Supreme Court has followed up on its groundbreaking decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), which imposed the so-called “ABC Test” for determining whether a worker is...more
On 14 January 2020, the California Supreme Court held that its earlier landmark decision setting forth the definitive rule for independent contractor classification, Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (2018),...more
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court held that any individual who performs work for a person or entity is presumed to be an employee who falls within the...more
Looking back, the California Supreme Court doubles down on its decision to retroactively impose the state’s ABC test for workers. Our Labor & Employment Group delves into what the future holds for employers, employees, and...more
The California Supreme Court held on January 14, 2021, that its landmark Dynamex decision, which established a rigid standard under California law for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, and later was...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court decided Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. The decision holds that the ABC test used to determine independent contractor versus employee status for purposes of...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that the “ABC Test” for classifying workers as independent contractors applies retroactively. The high court first articulated this standard, which makes it tougher for...more
It was quite a week for the gig economy in California. This is the second of a two-part update; last week we reported on a union- and driver-led California Supreme Court challenge to Proposition 22, the November 2020 voter...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court decided, at the request of the Ninth Circuit, that its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) applies retroactively. See our...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc. that the ABC test for determining worker classification fashioned in its groundbreaking decision, Dynamex v. Superior...more
The California Supreme Court in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. ruled on Jan. 14, 2021, that its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) (Dynamex), applies...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchise International, Inc. held that the three-part “ABC” test previously set forth in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court also applies...more