News & Analysis as of

CA Supreme Court Employment Litigation Unpaid Wages

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Confirms the “Knowing and Intentional” Standard of California’s Wage Statement Law Requires a “Knowing...

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

CA Supreme Court Grants Employers Relief on Wage Statement Penalties Under Labor Code Section 226

On Monday May 7, the California Supreme Court confirmed, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Securities Services, Inc., S279397.PDF (ca.gov), that penalties authorized under Labor Code Section 226 (“Section 226”) for “knowing and...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Good Faith Defense Applies To Wage Statement Penalty Claims

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more

Stokes Wagner

Rounding Time Entries - Just Don’t Do It

Stokes Wagner on

On October 24, 2022, the Sixth District issued a decision in in Camp v. Home Depot, handing employees a major win in the wage and hour arena by holding that Home Depot’s practice of rounding hourly employees’ total daily...more

Fisher Phillips

The Importance of Getting the California “Regular Rate” Right

Fisher Phillips on

While most California employers are familiar with the “regular rate” from calculating non-exempt employees’ overtime payments, changes in the law make clear that employers will now need to perform the same regular rate...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Sometimes You Can Eat Your Cake And Have It, Too.

In an opinion issued on March 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court held that settling individual Labor Code claims does not strip an employee of standing to pursue civil penalties for the same violations under the Private...more

Fisher Phillips

Web Exclusive - September 2019: The Top 11 Labor And Employment Law Stories

Fisher Phillips on

It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more

Buchalter

California Supreme Court Limits PAGA Claim Damages in Landmark Ruling Denying Plaintiff’s Wage Claim

Buchalter on

In a surprising decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled that Plaintiffs in Private Attorney General Act  (PAGA) cases cannot recover for their own or their fellow employees’ unpaid wages, but instead are limited to...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Rules that the “Underpaid Wages” Component of Labor Code Section 558 is Not a Civil Penalty under PAGA

Littler on

In ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson), the California Supreme Court held that unpaid wages are not civil penalties under California Labor Code section 558 and are therefore outside the reach of...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Claims Limited to Recovery of Civil Penalties

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court has held that an individual may not seek unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558. Section 558 can be invoked only by the Labor Commissioner or by an individual suing under...more

Carlton Fields

California Employers Win Major Damage Limitation in Wage and Hour Suits

Carlton Fields on

California employers just won a major victory this week when the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court. The exposure in Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cases was...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

California Supreme Court Rejects Conversion Claim for Unpaid Wages

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In Voris v. Lampert, the California Supreme Court held that unpaid wages cannot be recovered through a tort claim for conversion....more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

No Preemption Where Labor Code Doesn’t Require Consulting A CBA

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that the Labor Management Relations Act does not preempt claims under the Labor Code where a defense requires little more than referring to a collective bargaining...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Supreme Court Prevents Employees’ Tort and Contract Claims Against Employers’ Payroll Companies

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

BakerHostetler

California Supreme Court: Payroll Companies Not Liable to Client’s Employees for Unpaid Wages

BakerHostetler on

The California Supreme Court has cut off another avenue for employees to sue payroll provider companies for unpaid wages. California courts have previously found that employees cannot sue a payroll company under a theory that...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Announces a Win for Payroll Outsourcing Industry

Last week, the California State Supreme Court struck a decisive victory in favor of payroll companies, issuing a unanimous opinion that an employee is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between her employer and its...more

Locke Lord LLP

July 2018 Independent Contractor Misclassification and Compliance News Update

Locke Lord LLP on

Last month was notable for a number of judicial and administrative decisions against companies defending independent contractor misclassification claims. In one case, the plaintiff seeks to use the company’s statements in...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Down To The Minute: Starbucks Wage-And-Hour Decision - California Supreme Court Rejects Employer-Friendly Defense In Class Action

California employers cannot require employees to routinely work — even for just minutes — off-the-clock without compensation, according to the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Troester v. Starbucks. ...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

California Supreme Court Says Employers Must Pay for Several Minutes of Off-the-Clock Work

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more

Perkins Coie

California’s High Court Rejects FLSA’s De Minimis Doctrine

Perkins Coie on

The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more

Buchalter

California Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Off-The-Clock Work Claims

Buchalter on

Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Employment Law Reporter August 2018: California High Court Restricts Employer-Friendly ‘De Minimis’ Defense for Off-the-Clock Work

Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking decision that severely limits employers’ ability to rely on the ‘de minimis’ doctrine as a defense to not paying for minimal increments of off-the-clock...more

Alston & Bird

California Tosses De Minimis Doctrine for Off-the-Clock Work

Alston & Bird on

The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more

Blank Rome LLP

“De Minimis” May Be Down, but It’s Not Out—And What Does It Mean for Employer Rounding Policies in California?

Blank Rome LLP on

On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

How Much Is Closing a Door Worth? The California Supreme Court Addresses the De Minimis Doctrine - Labor & Employment Newsletter

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

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide