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 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
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
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
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 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 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
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
As reported... California recently enacted new legislation – Assembly Bill 5 – that expanded the scope of an “employee” under state law. Beginning January 1, 2020, the answer to whether a person providing services in...more
On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that attempts to settle some of the ambiguity that remained surrounding the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex and its “ABC Test.”...more
On September 18, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 5 into law, and the new law will become effective on January 1, 2020. AB 5 codifies the "ABC test" from the landmark Dynamex case to determine whether a service...more
Following the launch of the so-called “MeToo” movement, the California Legislature (controlled by a Democratic supermajority) has aggressively churned out new bills that further strengthen the ability for workers to sue their...more
• On September 10, 2019, the California State Legislature passed AB 5, which codifies the “ABC test” in Dynamex Ops. West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), for determining whether a worker is an employee or an...more
On September 11, 2019, the California Assembly passed a bill codifying last year’s Supreme Court of California decision establishing a new test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. The...more
While the California Labor Code specifies that an off-duty meal period must consist of at least 30 minutes of uninterrupted time during which the employee is relieved of all duties, the duration requirement for an on-duty...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
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 have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
It’s been a busy week on the Dynamex front, and the news for businesses continues to get worse. As we recently discussed, the 9th Circuit held just last week that Dynamex and the ABC test should be applied retroactively. The...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
Most employers do not spend much time reviewing pay statements—often a single piece of paper provided to employees each pay period containing the hours worked, amounts paid, and similar information usually accompanying the...more
On February 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of California issued its decision in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, holding that employees may not sue their employers’ payroll companies for wage claims in connection with their employment....more
On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Goonewardene v. ADP, Inc., S238941 that a payroll service provider cannot be held liable for errors it makes in issuing paychecks to workers of companies...more