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
The California Supreme Court answered a trio of questions from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about “hours worked” under Wage Order No. 16, which governs the construction, drilling, logging and mining industries....more
The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more
Is an employee compensable for time spent on waiting and exit searches as "hours worked," even after clocking out? Per the California Supreme Court, it depends on the level of the employer's control over its employees....more
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. The Court responded to the request from the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions about Wage...more
With $3 million in funding from A.B. 102, California’s recent appropriations bill, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the administrative body charged by statute to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions, will...more
On July 10, 2023, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 102 (“AB 102”), amending the Budget Act of 2023. Buried in this seemingly innocuous appropriations bill is a provision that could mean more burdensome wage and hour...more
On July 10, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 102 into law (“AB 102”). This is the first time in almost 20 years that the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) has received funding from the state. The IWC,...more
On July 10, 2023, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 102 which will amend the Budget Act of 2023. The bill will take effect immediately as a Budget Bill. While appropriations bills such as AB 102 are generally not...more
After nearly two decades of being defunded by California lawmakers, the controversial Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) may be on the verge of being reinstated – but are employer concerns premature? Originally established...more
A California appellate panel has weighed in on premium pay in a decision on remand from the state’s highest court, with an employer-friendly result....more
Among other protections and rights, employees are entitled to the use of suitable seats when the “nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats” pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders. As...more
Most California employers understand that they are required to provide suitable seating to employees when the nature of their work reasonably permits the use of seats. However, a California Court only recently opined on...more
This week, the Court takes a close look at the standards for certifying a class action under Rule 23 and for classifying someone as an employee or independent contractor under California law. ...more
In a recent opinion in Hill v. Walmart Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Walmart on Hill’s claim for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203, finding there was a good-faith dispute...more
On February 18, 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Jill LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Company, __ Cal. App. 5th __ (2022), that provides important guidance in two areas. First, the Court made clear that...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that has an impact on all California employers and the manner in which meal, rest, and recovery break premiums are calculated. Labor Code Section 226.7(c)...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
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
Reversing a court of appeal decision that had been welcome news for employers, the California Supreme Court held today in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, S259172, that the term “regular rate of compensation,” used for...more
Today, the California Supreme Court held that employers cannot use the practice of rounding time punches in the meal period context, and that unrounded time records that show noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable...more
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court held that any individual who performs work for a person or entity is presumed to be an employee who falls within the...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled in Vazquez et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Case no. S258191, that the Dynamex ABC Test, which makes it harder for companies to classify workers as...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