Podcast: California Employment News - The Executive Pay Exemption
California Employment News: The Executive Pay Exemption
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Pay Exemptions
California Employment News: The Basics of Pay Exemptions
Constangy Webinar - Spring Cleaning: How to Keep your HR Practices Mess Free
Podcast: California Employment News - Using Employee Time Attestations
California Employment News: Using Employee Time Attestations
Podcast: California Employment News - Public Healthcare Workers Now Get Meal and Rest Breaks
California Employment News: Public Healthcare Workers Now Get Meal and Rest Breaks
On-Demand Webinar | California Employment Law Update: Tips for Staying Compliant in 2023
California Employment News: Meal and Rest Break Compliance for Non-Exempt Employees
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
FLSA and Wage and Hour Issues for Restaurants
Case in Point -- Recent Updates in California Employment Law
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
HR Law 101 Ep.3: What You Need to Know About Wage and Hour Laws
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
I-14: Update on EEO-1 and I-9 Forms, Employer Obligations After a Hurricane or Other Natural Disaster, and Attorney Jason Barsanti on Meal and Rest Breaks
Employment Law This Week: Break Pay, Misclassification of Franchisees, California Computer Professional Exemption, Non-Compete Payment
Do Employers Have to Pay For All Time Worked?
In the recent decision of Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California appellate court addressed the enforceability of prospective written meal period waivers for employees working shifts between five and six hours. ...more
The California Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision affirming that employers and employees may mutually agree, in writing, to prospectively waive the employee’s meal period for shifts between five and six...more
In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California Court of Appeal answered a question that many California employers may not have known even needed to be answered—whether California employees can prospectively waive their...more
For over a decade, many California employers have issued written meal period waivers that permit employees to voluntarily agree to prospectively waive 30-minute meal periods throughout their employment and under certain...more
What is a “blanket” or “prospective” meal period waiver? California employers can offer non-exempt employees the opportunity to (1) waive their first meal period if their work period does not exceed six hours or (2) waive...more
The California Labor Code generally requires that employers provide meal periods to non-exempt employees working more than five hours. However, the Labor Code provides that meal periods can be waived by agreement of the...more
The California Court of Appeal just handed employers a wage and hour win by ruling that meal period waivers prospectively signed by non-exempt employees are enforceable if certain criteria are met. The April 21 decision in...more
In a significant ruling for employers, the California Court of Appeal has validated the use of “prospective” meal period waivers, allowing workers to voluntarily waive their meal breaks in advance, under certain conditions....more
Wage and hour claims—especially under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and class action lawsuits—continue to rise at an alarming rate. With more PAGA notices filed than ever before and wage and hour class...more
An appellate court in Washington state recently held a hospital liable to pay employees who worked through meal period breaks for their time worked plus compensation for an additional break as a penalty, highlighting...more
The California Supreme Court just ruled that public employers are not subject to civil penalties under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In a pivotal decision, the court held that public entities,...more
On August 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a momentous unanimous decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System (“Stone”), concluding that public employers are exempt from various Labor Code provisions and PAGA...more
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
In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., Case No. S279397 (May 6, 2024), the California Supreme Court held that if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage...more
On May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., clarified that an employer is not liable for statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements when it had a good faith and...more
At Meyers Nave, we prioritize assisting our clients in establishing and maintaining wage and hour policies that comply with legal standards. This includes implementing effective systems and processes to ensure all levels of...more
For the second time, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Systems in May. In May 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its first decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Systems,...more
Last week, a Washington healthcare company was ordered to pay 33,000 workers $98.3 million in damages in a class action related to its meal break and timeclock rounding practices. The vast majority of the awarded damages...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether trial courts can dismiss Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims as...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Jorge Luis Estrada et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., resolving a court of appeal split between the Second District (Wesson v. Staples...more
Takeaway: On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court resolved a conflict between California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and the “manageability” concept used by courts to evaluate whether class certification...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision looking to resolve a conflict between California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and a concept called “manageability” which refers to the...more
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills Inc., a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court resolves a split between California courts of appeal by ruling that a trial court does not have inherent authority to strike PAGA...more
A Single Incident Of Harassing Conduct May Create A Hostile Work Environment - Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 5th 865 (2023) - Stephanie Beltran, a server at the Hard Rock Hotel in Palm...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court held that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike (dismiss with prejudice) claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on manageability grounds. The...more