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 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
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
Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, 2021 WL 2965438 (July 15, 2021) - On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision, Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, regarding the rate at which premium...more
The California Supreme Court ruled on July 15 that California employers must calculate nonexempt employees’ meal, rest, and recovery period premium payments based on both hourly wages and any other nondiscretionary wage...more
Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community. College District, No. B296593, 2020 WL 7706321 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020) - The availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a claim under the Fair Employment and...more
Time Spent By Employees In Exit Searches Is Compensable - Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 2020 WL 727813 (Cal. S. Ct. 2020) - In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United...more
The California Supreme Court has concluded that employees must be compensated for time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices. ...more
This edition of Employment Flash looks at a series of recent NLRB decisions, many of which apply to all employers, not just those with unionized employees. We also discuss other U.S. federal and state labor and...more
In an Advice Memorandum dated April 16, 2019, but released on May 14, 2019, the NLRB’s General Counsel staked out a position in one of the most contentious and influential questions in labor and employment law today: Whether...more
Eddie Money Beats Discrimination Lawsuit Based On Free Speech Right - Symmonds v. Mahoney, 31 Cal. App. 5th 1096 (2019) - After 41 years, singer/songwriter Edward Joseph Mahoney (aka "Eddie Money") terminated the...more
California’s Dynamex Rolls Out The ABC Test And The Presumption Of Employment - ? The burden is placed on the employer to prove IC status ? Individual is deemed an employee unless employer demonstrates prongs A, B, and...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: With apologies to Dr. Seuss, we’ve penned an ode to the judicial chaos of the year just past, highlighted by three California Supreme Court decisions—Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., Dynamex Operations v....more
It’s hard to keep up with the news these days. It sometimes feels like you can’t step away from your phone, computer, or TV for more than an hour or so without a barrage of new information hitting the headlines—and you’re...more
Employee Non-Solicitation Provision Was An Unenforceable Restraint - AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 5669154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) - AMN and Aya are competitors in the business of providing...more
This past summer, in a high-profile case brought against Starbucks, the California Supreme Court resolved an open question concerning compensable time. Or, at least it did to some extent. The court held that California...more
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
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
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
Once again, California's Supreme Court has underscored that California employment law can differ from federal law in significant, and typically more employee friendly, ways. In Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation,1 a...more
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
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
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
It is a small world after all. Last week, the California Supreme Court decided that the de minimus rule, imported by the U.S. Supreme Court into the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1946 (Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery...more