What's the Tea in L&E? Why You Need Policies for Temps and Other Contractors
Fintech Focus Podcast | Managing a Workforce in a Regulated Environment
(Podcast) California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
Exploring Employment Law Across Borders: Italy vs. US With White Lotus — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 31: Trade Secrets and Protecting Confidential Information with Jennie Cluverius of Maynard Nexsen
#WorkforceWednesday®: Staples Sued Over MA’s Lie Detector Notice, NJ’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code, 2024 Voting Leave Policies - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Employment Law Now VIII-149 - Part 2 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Are "Furries" Protected in the Workplace?
Employment Law Now VIII-148- Part 1 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
Back to School: 3 Essential Employee Trainings
The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 30: Plaintiff Legal Trends with Paul Porter of Cromer, Babb & Porter
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
The Burr Broadcast: OSHA Clarifies Work-Relatedness of Employee Injuries While Traveling
Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law Updates
In the spirit of the season—and keeping some semblance of normal—we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this seventh day of...more
This article follows an earlier article on hazard pay.... Hazard pay legislation is expanding nationwide at all levels of government. The growth in calls for hazard pay is the result of a shift in perception of the types of...more
On September 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Robert Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc. that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) applies to workers in the cannabis industry. This is a...more
In yet another legal development calling into question a traditional independent contractor relationship in the U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that off-duty police officers were employees of a...more
In another important decision regarding an employer’s obligation to provide rest breaks, the California Supreme Court in Jennifer Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, dealt with two issues...more
Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during...more
On Dec. 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. that an employer’s policy requiring employees to remain “on call” during paid rest breaks violated state law. This...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Rest Periods - Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 7407328 (Cal. S. Ct. 2016) - Jennifer Augustus filed this...more
Action Item: California employers are urged to review their rest period policies and practices, and consider changes that will ensure they relinquish control over how employees spend their break time and relieve their...more
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. You may...more
A class of security guards received an early holiday present from the California Supreme Court on December 22. The Court ruled that California law requires employees on rest breaks be relieved of all duties. It...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Break Time - This week, the California Supreme Court ruled that California law strictly prohibits on-duty rest periods. “What...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Does carrying a pager nullify a rest break? What about the possibility of being tapped on the shoulder by your boss? Or being called on your cell phone? The California Supreme Court considered these and...more
Under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) may not certify a union to represent a bargaining unit if the union admits into membership both guards and non-guards. (29 U.S.C....more
For thirty-two years, it has been a settled proposition that an employer may, upon the expiration of a contract, refuse to continue to negotiate with a “mixed-guard” union that represents its security guards. Continuing its...more
Actual Knowledge by Employer Not Necessary for Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Rules - Why it matters: In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a teenage applicant to...more
On Premises, On-Call Time Compensable; Sleep Time Not Excluded - Emphasizing that California law provides greater protections than federal law to on-call employees, the California Supreme Court in Mendiola v. CPS...more
On December 31, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (Case No. S212704) that security guards who work shifts of 24 or more hours under Wage Order 4 must be compensated for their...more
In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., issued on January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that security guards are entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at their assigned worksites, even when...more
In Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 107082, published January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court held that: (1) on-call hours at a worksite represented “hours worked” for overtime purposes when the employer...more
In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., S212704 (Jan. 8 2015), California’s Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that “hours worked” under California law includes all hours an employee is under the employer’s control, even...more
On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the on-call hours for security guards who work 24-hour shifts constituted compensable hours worked. Further, the court ruled that the guards’...more
Yesterday we told you about the California Court of Appeals' decision in which the court found that it was not unlawful for an employer to require its security guards to be "on call" during rest periods. The Sixth Circuit...more
In yet another decision rejecting a settlement of an employment class action, the Northern District of California refused to approve a settlement of a wage and hour suit due to numerous problems with the resolution reached...more
MIAMI - In a verdict in favor of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a jury has found that a licensed security guard with only one arm was unlawfully discriminated against based on his limb loss when his...more