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
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
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
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more
The California Supreme Court's recent opinions in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. clarify when, and under what circumstances, employees who even occasionally work in California are entitled to...more
Time Spent By Employees In Exit Searches Is Compensable - Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 2020 WL 727813 (Cal. S. Ct. 2020) - In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United...more
Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., -- Cal. -- (2020) - Summary: The time employees spent on Apple’s premises waiting for and undergoing a mandatory exit search of personal belongings was compensable as “hours worked” under Wage...more
Employees must be paid for time spent on their employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required searches of bags and other property voluntarily brought to work, according to the California Supreme Court’s ruling...more
On June 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District issued an unpublished opinion in Krista Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. holding that BJ’s Restaurants was not required to reimburse its employees for the cost...more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
This month’s key California employment law cases involve reporting time pay and potential liability of payroll companies for wage and hour violations. ...more
A California court has held that employees required to call their employers before a shift to determine whether they are assigned to work may be entitled to reporting time pay on days when they are not actually put to work....more
For more than 75 years, California’s Wage Order No. 7 has required employers to compensate employees with reporting time pay if employees are required to report for work and in fact show up, but are then provided less than an...more
On February 4, 2019, a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal held in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., No. B280151, that employees scheduled for “on-call” or “call-in” shifts may be entitled to reporting time pay, even when...more
This month’s key employment law cases address meal periods and payment of wages....more
This month’s key employment law cases address the test for independent contractor status, the legality of an incentive compensation system, and personal liability for wage and hour violations....more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there were an unprecedented number of changes all through 2017. And if the first four months...more
The California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, imposing a simplified but more burdensome test that businesses must satisfy to justify contractor status,...more
• The California Supreme Court's widely anticipated decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court sets a new standard for determining employee versus independent contractor status for purposes of California Wage...more
On Monday, April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the matter of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. In a voluminous, 82-page decision, the California Supreme...more
Since 2009, many large retailers in California have been sued for failing to provide “suitable seating” in accordance with the state’s wage orders. Some of those employers have recently been forced to pay significant...more
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. You may...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp., the California Court of Appeal reinstated an effort to certify a class of over 10,000 security officers required to sign on-duty meal period agreements. The Court of Appeal...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: California’s rules on rest breaks are still developing. Recent cases have addressed the timing of rest breaks, and whether employees (particularly those who remain “on call”) must be relieved of all duty...more
Kilby V. CVS Pharmacy: The California Supreme Court In The Driver’s Seat Clarifies Seating Standards In The Workplace - Most of the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s industry and occupational wage orders...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Seats must be provided for each location where the work reasonably permits. It started like a bad joke. A cashier and a bank teller walk into a bar—actually, a federal court served by the Bar—and sue...more