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
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more
CDF Wage and Hour Task Force – Monthly Updates and Tips - On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in the matter of Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.....more
Many California employers require their employees to sign agreements to submit any disputes arising out their employment to binding arbitration. If an employee files a lawsuit in court, the employer then has the option of...more
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
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case of Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., finding that the trial court lacked the inherent authority to dismiss a California’s Private...more
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court jump-started 2024 with a boon to employees, ending trial courts’ inherent authority to dismiss unmanageable claims under the Private Attorneys’ General...more
California’s Private Attorneys’ General Act, or PAGA, just celebrated its 20th birthday despite repeated, failed attempts at its repeal. California’s Labor Code is among the strictest in the nation and California law affords...more
California law has for many years treated agreements that restrain one from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business as void and unenforceable, unless an exception applies. This applies to most non-compete and...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a case of first impression, the California Supreme Court decided FEHA claims can be litigated directly against certain agents of an employer. Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group....more
Answering certified questions from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court found that public policy precluded holding an employer liable where an employee’s spouse suffered from COVID-19...more
Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled in The People ex rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s Inc. that California’s whistleblower protection statute (Labor Code § 1102.5) protects employees who disclose unlawful conduct,...more
Ruling on a lingering legal issue from the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Supreme Court held that an employer is not liable for cases of “take-home” COVID-19 — that is, where a household member allegedly caught the virus...more
The California Supreme Court has answered in the negative the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ certified question regarding “take-home” COVID-19 exposure (see Federal Appeals Court Asks California If Covid-19 “Take Home” Suits...more
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. on July 6, 2023, that California employers cannot be held liable by their workers’ household members when workers contract COVID-19 in the...more
The California Supreme Court (the Court) issued a unanimous decision on May 22, 2023, in the case of People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. The ruling broadened the interpretation of “disclose” under California Labor...more
Last summer, we reported here the California Supreme Court ruling that premium payments owed under Labor Code section 226.7 for meal and rest break violations constitute “wages.” The Naranjo et al. v. Spectrum Sec. Servs.,...more
Highlights of Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center - In Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, the California Supreme Court allowed an employee who sued and settled its case against a staffing agency to move forward with a...more
On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs. Inc. (Naranjo), holding that meal and rest break premiums (also known as extra pay or premium pay) constitute “wages” that:...more
The California Supreme Court, on May 23, 2022, issued a seminal opinion in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., which found that employees can recover penalties for failure to timely pay wages at termination and...more
On May 23 2022, the California Supreme Court reversed the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal and made clear that meal and rest period premiums (or “extra pay” or “premium pay”) constitute “wages” and must be accurately...more
The California Supreme Court has held that the standard for assessing whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 is not the McDonnell Douglas test, but the more plaintiff-friendly standard...more
The Supreme Court of California provided California employers with important clarification on the standard courts will apply when analyzing an employee’s whistleblower retaliation claim arising under Labor Code Section...more
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) has so far evaded arbitration agreements. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States will take up Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana to determine whether the Federal...more