Latest Posts › Employer Liability Issues

Share:

Are My Employees Working Multiple Jobs? 

“Double-dipping” (sometimes called “overemployment”) refers to employees working multiple jobs, often full time.  In many circumstances, the multiple employers are unaware of one another. Double dipping creates legal...more

Key California Employment Law Case Summaries: July 2023

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks  Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 993 (2023)... Adolph v. Uber Technologies Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023)... Woodworth v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, No. E072704, 2023 WL 4701976 (Cal. Ct. App. July...more

Key California Employment Law Case Summaries: May & June 2023

Summary -   An employer must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs unless it can show that doing so would “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” ...more

Key California Employment Law Case Summaries: April 2023

A plaintiff maintains standing to pursue a non-individual PAGA claim in state court when his individual PAGA claim is sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement...more

Helping Employers Traverse the PAGA Jungle: Key Takeaways

Navigating the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) landscape can be overwhelming for California employers. To help employers stay updated on the ever-evolving statute, this article highlights key takeaways from our recent...more

Key California Employment Law Case Studies: February 2023

Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. v. Hewitt, 143 Superior Court 677 (2023) - Summary - Employee was eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) because his “daily-rate” plan did not satisfy...more

CA Court of Appeal Holds that Plaintiff Whose Individual PAGA Claims Were Ordered to Arbitration May Still Pursue Non-Individual...

Disagreeing with the United States Supreme Court’s conclusion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the California Court of Appeal held in Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC that a plaintiff who has been ordered to...more

Are Your Severance Agreements Safe?

On Feb. 21, 2023, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) handed down a decision in the matter of McLaren Macomb holding that broad non-disparagement and non-disclosure provisions in severance agreements violate...more

Key California Employment Law Case Summaries: September, October, and November 2022

Summary - Where an employer can and does track the exact time in minutes that its employees work each shift, and those records show that employees were not paid for all the time they worked, neutral time rounding is not a...more

Key Employment Law Case Summaries: August 2022

Technology Credit Union v. Rafat, 82 Cal. App. 5th 314 (2022) - Summary: To obtain a workplace violence restraining order, an employer must produce evidence of a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: January & February 2022

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022) - Summary: Labor Code section 1102.6, not McDonnell Douglas, provides the standard for evaluating whistleblower retaliation claims under Labor Code...more

California Supreme Court Clarifies Burdens of Proof Applicable to Whistleblower Claims

In response to a certified question posed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court on Jan. 27, 2022, resolved a years-long split among California courts by confirming that an...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: September 2021

Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 20-15291, 2021 WL 4187860 (9th Cir. Sep. 15, 2021) - Summary: The FAA does not preempt Labor Code section 432.6’s prohibition of mandatory employment arbitration agreements, but does...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: July 2021

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, No. S259172, 2021 WL 2965438 (Cal. Jul. 15, 2021) Summary: The term “regular rate of compensation” under California Labor Code section 226.7 is synonymous with the term “regular rate...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: May 2021

Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 19-16184, 2021 WL 2176584 (9th Cir., May 28, 2021) - Summary: An employee lacks Article III standing to bring a PAGA claim in federal court for Labor Code violations that the...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: March 2021

Clark v. Superior Court., No. D077711, 2021 WL 1050057 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2021) - Summary: Employee exhausted her administrative remedies despite failing to identify her employer’s proper legal name in her DFEH...more

California Supreme Court Rejects Use of Rounding Policies for Meal Periods

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

Key California Employment Law Cases: November 2020

Semprini v. Wedbush Securities., Inc., 57 Cal. App. 5th 246 (2020) - Summary: A compensation plan based solely on commissions, with recoverable advances on future commissions, does not qualify as “salary” for purposes of...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: September 2020

Sanchez v. Martinez, No. C083268, 2020 WL 5494239 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2020) - Summary: Piece-rate employees who are provided with unpaid rest breaks are entitled to damages in the amount of the minimum wage for actual...more

[Webinar] 2020 Virtual Employment Law Seminar: Fear Nothing - October 21st, 9:30 am - 3:30 pm PDT

This year has been fraught with disruption. To make things easier, Payne & Fears is offering one full day of seminars on pressing employment law topics. Attendees can join from the comfort of their homes or offices. Attend...more

Key California Employment Law Cases: May 2020

Betancourt v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, No. B293625, 2020 WL 2570839 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020) - Summary: A plaintiff is not entitled to recover penalties for waiting time and wage statement violations based on claims of...more

California Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent Undergoing Exit Searches Constitutes Compensable "Hours Worked"

On February 13, 2020, in a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court held in Frlekin v. Apple Inc., Case No. S243805, that time spent on an employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of...more

30 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide