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®
On May 15, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Maia v. IEW Construction Group that both the six-year look-back period and liquidated damages provided by the state Wage Theft Act (WTA) do not apply retroactively....more
On August 6, 2019, New Jersey’s wage and hour laws were amended to include liquidated damages on some claims, a new retaliation cause of action, and expansion of the statute of limitations from two to six years (the “2019...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The New Jersey Supreme Court held that amendments to New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law that increase employer wage-hour liability are not retroactive....more
In a recent unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Christopher Maia v. IEW Construction Group, the seven-judge panel reversed the prior judgment of the Appellate Division and held that the August 6, 2019,...more
In a unanimous decision, on May 15, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state’s amendments (Chapter 212) to the Wage Payment Law (WPL) and the Wage and Hour Law (WHL) apply prospectively, and therefore plaintiffs...more
In the words of Tom Cruise’s character Lt. Daniel Kaffee in A Few Good Men, “the hits keep on coming.” This quote crystallizes how California employers will undoubtedly feel following the California Supreme Court’s ruling in...more
On April 14, 2022, the SJC held that where employees’ sole claims for overtime wages rest on the employer’s liability under the FLSA, employees are limited to the remedies provided under the FLSA, and may not receive treble...more
On February 7, 2022, there were two big COVID-19-related news developments in the Golden State: First, Gov. Newsom announced that California’s mask mandates would expire on February 15th. Second, the legislature voted to...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
In response to last year’s groundbreaking decision by the Washington State Supreme Court in Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., the state legislature recently passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5172 (SB5172),...more
On March 19, 2021 Governor Newsom signed into law SB 95 (adding sections 248.2 and 248.3 to the Labor Code), which requires employers to pay California employees up to two weeks of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave...more
SB 95, recently signed into law by Governor Newsom, provides immediate COVID-19 paid sick leave protections for many California employees. The new law continues and expands the requirements for COVID-19-related sick pay ...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 that the “ABC Test” for classifying workers as independent contractors applies retroactively. The high court first articulated this standard, which makes it tougher for...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
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchise International, Inc. held that the three-part “ABC” test previously set forth in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court also applies...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court decided, at the request of the Ninth Circuit, that its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) applies retroactively. Vazquez v....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that the worker friendly “ABC” test set forth by the Court in its 2018 landmark ruling, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, applies...more