News & Analysis as of

Employer Mandates › CA Supreme Court

Employer Mandates is a term commonly used to describe employer insurance obligations under the Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide... more +
Employer Mandates is a term commonly used to describe employer insurance obligations under the Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide minimum essential insurance coverage to their employees or else pay statutory penalties. The concept of an employer mandate is not unique to the Affordable Care Act; many EU countries have their own versions with different and/or expanded employer obligations.  less -
Fisher Phillips

The Top 14 Workplace Law Stories from January 2022

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

Perkins Coie

California Supreme Court Requires Employers to Pay for Mandatory Exit Searches

Perkins Coie on

The California Supreme Court recently issued a decision holding that the time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches is compensable time that must be paid to employees. The decision...more

Downey Brand LLP

California Supreme Court Holds Apple Employees Must Be Compensated for Time Spent Undergoing Exit Searches

Downey Brand LLP on

Last week, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that employee exit searches constituted compensable “hours worked” under California law. Under its “Employee Package and Bag Searches” policy, Apple...more

Stokes Wagner

California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Compensation During Mandatory Employee Exit Searches

Stokes Wagner on

On February 13, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., holding that the time employees spend waiting for their bags and other personal belongings to be screened at the end of a...more

Stoel Rives - World of Employment

California Supreme Court Clarifies What Constitutes “Hours Worked” Under California Law

Stoel Rives - World of Employment on

In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question...more

Nilan Johnson Lewis PA

California Employers: CA Supreme Court Takes Aim at Wage Laws, Contradicts Federal Law

Nilan Johnson Lewis PA on

California wage laws have taken another alarming departure from federal standards. The highest state court recently held in Frlekin v. Apple that non-exempt employees must be paid for the time their bags and personal...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

California Supreme Court Holds That Time Employees Spent On Mandatory Exit Inspections Is Compensable

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

- The California Supreme Court held that time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security inspections is compensable. - The decision rejects the holding by some lower courts that if employees could...more

Fisher Phillips

Sound The Alarm: What California’s Latest Bag Check Case Means for You

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court just held that the time spent by employees waiting for and undergoing security checks of bags and other personal items is compensable time under California law, even when...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

What the Frlekin?! California Supreme Court Says Bag Checks Are Compensable

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Today, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that time spent by non-exempt employees undergoing mandatory bag or other security checks is compensable work time under California law. The decision stands...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Employment Flash - June 2017

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

This edition examines recent labor and employment developments at the U.S. federal, state and local levels, including the House of Representatives' American Health Care Act and the Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act, the...more

BCLP

The California Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Day of Rest Requirements

BCLP on

The California Supreme Court clarified employer obligations under the state’s day of rest statutes, Cal. Labor Code §§ 550-558.1, which entitle employees to one day’s rest in seven. In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th...more

Fenwick & West LLP

On Premises, On-Call Time Compensable; Sleep Time Not Excluded

Fenwick & West LLP on

Emphasizing that California law provides greater protections than federal law to on-call employees, the California Supreme Court in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. held that security guards were entitled to...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Fenwick Employment Brief - February 2015

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

13 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide