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
When is an employer’s violation of providing employees with wage statements knowing and intentional, triggering financial penalties? Taking its second look at the case, the California Supreme Court ruled that an...more
In a rare victory for employers, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Serv., Inc., S279397 (Decided 6 May 2024) that an employer’s “objectively reasonable, good faith belief” that it has...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
The California Supreme Court held this month that employers do not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., S274191 (July...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 held last week that a California employer does not owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to members of an employee’s household. In a unanimous decision, Kuciemba v. Victory...more
Background: Under California law, employers must provide non-exempt employees with one 30-minute meal period that begins no later than the end of the fifth hour of work and another 30-minute meal period that begins no...more
California’s Supreme Court issued an opinion today that will likely further increase employers’ risk of class action lawsuits arising out of meal periods. The court made two significant holdings: 1. While employers are...more