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
A recent California Court of Appeal ruling significantly expands the conditions under which the reporting time pay rule in California will apply. Skylar Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. involved retail clothing store workers who were...more
On Feb. 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeal decided Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., holding that employers must provide “reporting time pay” when requiring employees to call in prior to a potential shift to learn whether they must...more
Scheduling employees is becoming more difficult for employers, and the State seems to be hurtling toward predictive scheduling laws. Last month, my partner Lukas Clary blogged about the recent California Supreme Court...more
The New York State Department of Labor (NYDOL) announced that, at this time, it is no longer going to pursue regulations to the Miscellaneous Industries Wage Order that would have required “call-in pay” or “on-call”...more
When a California employee is scheduled for an on-call shift and company policy requires her to call in two hours beforehand to see whether she must work that shift, is that employee “reporting for work” even if that employee...more
The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) is no longer pursuing regulations on “call-in pay,” or predictive scheduling, that would affect most New York employers....more
On February 4, 2019, a California Court of Appeal ruled in Ward v. Tilly's that an employer must pay reporting time pay to employees who are required to call in two hours before a potential shift to learn whether they are...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
Seyfarth Synopsis: Traditionally, “report for work” has meant physically showing up at the jobsite, ready to work. ...more
Last week a California Court of Appeal’s decision concerning the “reporting time pay” wage order rule joined a growing line of other wage order litigation – such as those complaints regarding suitable seating, or rest...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
• The California Court of Appeal recently expanded the application of reporting time pay to certain types of “on-call” shifts. • If an employer requires an employee to call in or otherwise contact the employer to find out...more
On February 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeal, Second District issued a 2-1 decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. in which it held employees must be given “reporting time pay” under Wage Order No. 7-2001 when an employer...more
A California Court of Appeal just announced a sweeping change in California’s reporting time pay rules which now prohibits a common scheduling practice used by employers throughout the state (Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc.). Tuesday’s...more
Revised rules from the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL” or the “Department”) would impact many employers by expanding those situations for which an employee must receive "call-in pay." ...more
In January 2018, we issued an advisory regarding proposed regulations from the New York State Department of Labor (the “NYSDOL”) revising the “call-in” pay requirements of the Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries...more
The New York State Department of Labor (the “NYSDOL”) has proposed regulations revising the “call-in” pay requirements of the Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations (“Wage Order”). Covered employees...more
Michael Schmidt, Vice Chair of Cozen O’Connor’s Labor & Employment Department, provides an update on required EEO-1 and I-9 Forms, and addresses Employer Obligations to Employees After a Hurricane or Other Natural Disaster....more
Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during...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: The Ninth Circuit has suggested it might upset longstanding “on call” practices by making California employers liable for “reporting time” pay to employees who phone in ahead of their schedule, only to find...more