California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") applies not only to employers but also to business entities performing services as agents for employers....more
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, No. S261247, that could have a far-reaching impact on the relationships between staffing companies and their clients....more
On May 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of California held that premium pay for missed meal and rest periods constitutes “wages” under California labor law and that employers may be held liable for the failure to properly report...more
On March 23, 2022, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., ruled that courts do not have authority to strike a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)...more
On September 9, 2021, California’s Court of Appeal issued an important decision in Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC (“Wesson”), holding that trial courts have discretion to strike claims brought under the Private...more
While the California courts were relatively quiet during 2020, the California Supreme Court has a few heavy-hitting employment cases pending for 2021. Here are the cases employers should be watching in the new year and...more
Exit inspections conducted as retail employees of Nike leave the store may need to be compensated, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined in a class action, applying the California Supreme Court’s recent...more
August 2018 was a busy month in the area of independent contractor misclassification and compliance including a number of new court filings and decisions, new regulatory initiatives, and new legislation. While none of these...more
Last month was notable for a number of judicial and administrative decisions against companies defending independent contractor misclassification claims. In one case, the plaintiff seeks to use the company’s statements in...more
The past two months were momentous for many companies that engage independent contractors in California to supplement their workforce or to interact with their customers. This applies not only to businesses based in...more
The ink on the Dynamex court decision is barely dry, but plaintiffs’ attorneys are not wasting any time in taking advantage of the new misclassification standard established for California businesses. In a pair of lawsuits...more
In an unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held today that California’s law requiring one day of rest in seven looks only at the employer’s defined workweek when determining the applicable period of time to be...more
On April 6, 2017, the California Supreme Court, in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., No. S224086, ruled that a provision in Citibank’s arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to seek “public” injunctive relief under...more
On December 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of California ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. According to the court, “[d]uring required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of...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
In Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., No. S222996 (Aug. 11, 2016), the California Supreme Court held, in an employment class action lawsuit, that when attorney fees are awarded to class counsel from a common fund,...more
California’s resistance to the longstanding federal policy favoring arbitration frequently results in public expressions of frustration by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. In over five years since the Supreme Court’s...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court, in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, deviated from rulings of most federal circuit courts to hold that the question of “who decides” whether class arbitration is available—courts...more
On April 4, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion with important implications for all California employers. For the first time, the court interpreted the meaning of wage orders promulgated by California’s...more
The California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, on August 3, 2015, reversing a finding by the Court of Appeal that an arbitration provision was unconscionable...more