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
The California Supreme Court answered a trio of questions from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about “hours worked” under Wage Order No. 16, which governs the construction, drilling, logging and mining industries....more
The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more
Is an employee compensable for time spent on waiting and exit searches as "hours worked," even after clocking out? Per the California Supreme Court, it depends on the level of the employer's control over its employees....more
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. The Court responded to the request from the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions about Wage...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that has an impact on all California employers and the manner in which meal, rest, and recovery break premiums are calculated. Labor Code Section 226.7(c)...more
On July 15, 2021, The Supreme Court of California published its opinion on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC and reversed the appellate court’s decision. Under California law, employers must provide employees with...more
The California Supreme Court on July 15, 2021, finally and conclusively resolved a long-unsettled question of California wage and hour law, likely to the detriment of most California employers. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood...more
In a unanimous opinion in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, the California Supreme Court ruled on the important practical question of whether the “regular rate of compensation” for calculating meal or rest break premium...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that will increase dramatically California employers’ potential liability for missed meal, rest, and recovery breaks. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,...more
Reversing a court of appeal decision that had been welcome news for employers, the California Supreme Court held today in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, S259172, that the term “regular rate of compensation,” used for...more
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
Today, in responding to a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court held in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchise International, Inc., S258191 (2020) that the...more
Employers have continued to feel the impact of the 2018 California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018). Today, the California Supreme Court in...more
Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 2020 WL 5225699 (9th Cir. 2020) - Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for,...more
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more
“Reporting time” pay must be paid when an employee is required to call in before their shift to find out if they have to work that shift. On March 19, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Herrera v....more
Time Spent By Employees In Exit Searches Is Compensable - Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 2020 WL 727813 (Cal. S. Ct. 2020) - In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United...more
Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., -- Cal. -- (2020) - Summary: The time employees spent on Apple’s premises waiting for and undergoing a mandatory exit search of personal belongings was compensable as “hours worked” under Wage...more
Employers must pay their California employees for time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of employee’s bags, packages, and other personal items, even if these items were...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued a decision holding that the time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches is compensable time that must be paid to employees. The decision...more
Last week, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that employee exit searches constituted compensable “hours worked” under California law. Under its “Employee Package and Bag Searches” policy, Apple...more
On February 13, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., holding that the time employees spend waiting for their bags and other personal belongings to be screened at the end of a...more
In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question...more
Employees must be paid for time spent waiting for, and undergoing, searches of their bags, packages and personal technology devices, the California Supreme Court ruled February 13, 2020, in Amanda Frlekin, et al. v Apple,...more
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