Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
#WorkforceWednesday: New AB5 Exemptions, EEOC COVID-19 Updates, Joint-Employer Rule Partially Struck Down - Employment Law This Week®
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), a hostile work environment “accrues” for purposes of the EFAA each time a...more
Join us on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 for "How To Calculate Meal And Rest Break Premiums: Learn When an Hour’s Pay is More Than an Hour’s Pay." This webinar is dedicated specifically to those businesses who employ...more
On July 15, 2021, The Supreme Court of California published its opinion on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC and reversed the appellate court’s decision. Under California law, employers must provide employees with...more
Since 2019, California employers have relied on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, 40 Cal.App.5th 1239, for the proposition that only hourly wages would be used to calculate “premium pay” for meal or rest breaks under Labor...more
The California Supreme Court on July 15, 2021, finally and conclusively resolved a long-unsettled question of California wage and hour law, likely to the detriment of most California employers. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood...more
In a unanimous opinion in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, the California Supreme Court ruled on the important practical question of whether the “regular rate of compensation” for calculating meal or rest break premium...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that will increase dramatically California employers’ potential liability for missed meal, rest, and recovery breaks. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,...more
The California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that if an employer fails to provide a legally compliant meal period or rest break, the wage premium they must pay out must be paid at the “regular rate of compensation” – which...more
The California Supreme Court held on January 14, 2021, that its landmark Dynamex decision, which established a rigid standard under California law for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, and later was...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court decided Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. The decision holds that the ABC test used to determine independent contractor versus employee status for purposes of...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc. that the ABC test for determining worker classification fashioned in its groundbreaking decision, Dynamex v. Superior...more
The California Supreme Court in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. ruled on Jan. 14, 2021, that its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) (Dynamex), applies...more
In early May, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that 100% commission-based inside salespersons are entitled to separate, additional overtime pay and premium pay for Sunday work. The decision, Sullivan v. Sleepy’s...more
For a little over a year, California employers and courts have been wrestling with the impact of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), which dramatically altered the independent contractor...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve the Dynamex case and the effect of prior administrative hearing on a civil lawsuit....more
As we previously reported, on May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, No. 17-16096, held that the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc....more
• The Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its May 2, 2019, opinion in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., in which it held that the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision regarding independent contractors and employees...more
In its May 2019 opinion in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that the recent California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, should apply retroactively. On Monday,...more
With just a one-page, single-paragraph Order, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday provided the faintest glimmer of hope for gig economy businesses everywhere – but especially for those in California. The federal...more
The analysis of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of California’s Wage Orders became more restrictive in 2018 following the California Supreme Court’s adoption of the “ABC” test in the...more
Strict Independent Contractor Test Applies Retroactively - Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, 2019 WL 1945001 (9th Cir. 2019) - Last year, the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 4...more
For nearly 30 years, California businesses have used the factor-based Borello test (named after S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989)) to determine whether workers should be classified...more
Last year, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, a landmark decision that dramatically increased the risk of misclassifying individuals as independent...more
Last year, we questioned whether California’s new restrictions on independent contractors would apply retroactively. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit decided that the landmark ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior...more
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Vazquez et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l., Inc., No. 17-16096 (Jan-Pro) on May 2, 2019, holding that the recently adopted, three-pronged...more