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
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
Trial Court Properly Dismissed Employee’s CFRA And Disability Discrimination Claims - Choochagi v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., 60 Cal. App. 5th 444 (2021) - George Choochagi worked as a technical support manager for...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
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
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. Vazquez v....more
The California Supreme Court held Thursday that the ABC test announced in its landmark Dynamex decision – which makes it infinitely harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors – applies on a...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that the worker friendly “ABC” test set forth by the Court in its 2018 landmark ruling, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, applies...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that the ABC Test, as articulated in Dynamex, applies retroactively to claims under California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders....more
Today, in responding to a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court held in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchise International, Inc., S258191 (2020) that the...more
Since April 2018, when the California Supreme Court issued its Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) decision, which radically changed the way in which courts differentiated between an...more
Employers have continued to feel the impact of the 2018 California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018). Today, the California Supreme Court in...more
By now, you should all know about California’s Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court decision, which was the impetus for changing the state’s worker classification law. If you need a refresher on Dynamex and the ABC...more
A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court decision requiring Uber and Lyft to “treat their California drivers as employees, providing them with the benefits and wages they are entitled to under state labor law.”...more
The “ABC test” now used in California to make determinations regarding the validity of independent contractor classifications initially was adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4...more
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, the California Supreme Court agreed to review a second case raising questions as to the scope and retroactivity of its landmark 2018 Dynamex decision....more