News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation › Employer Liability Issues › Labor Code

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Second District Court of Appeal held that, under the pre-reform PAGA statute, an individual employee need not have been employed or experienced a Labor Code violation during the one-year PAGA limitations period to have...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

9th Circuit Confirms Limited Application of Heightened Penalties for “Subsequent” Labor Code Violations

CDF Labor Law LLP on

On February 23, 2021, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel held in the decision of Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc. (Case No. 19-15382) that employers are not subject to heightened penalties for subsequent violations under the...more

Epstein Becker & Green

California Court Rules That Mandatory Service Charges May Be Gratuities

Epstein Becker & Green on

Upsetting what many considered settled precedent, a California Court of Appeal has held that a mandatory service charge may qualify as a “gratuity” under California Labor Code Section 351 that must be distributed to the...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Rules that the “Underpaid Wages” Component of Labor Code Section 558 is Not a Civil Penalty under PAGA

Littler on

In ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson), the California Supreme Court held that unpaid wages are not civil penalties under California Labor Code section 558 and are therefore outside the reach of...more

4 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