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
Ten is the presumptive upper limit on the number of depositions that each party may take in civil litigation in the federal courts. This number, provided by Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can be...more
In a welcome win for employers, the California Supreme Court recently blocked a PAGA plaintiff’s attempt to intervene and object to another PAGA plaintiff’s proposed settlement as a matter of right, in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,...more
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more
On August 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a momentous unanimous decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System (“Stone”), concluding that public employers are exempt from various Labor Code provisions and PAGA...more
The California Supreme Court just held that a plaintiff in one PAGA action does not have the right to intervene or object to a judgment in a similar action even if a settlement or other resolution in that similar case results...more
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court resolved a split in appellate authority in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., holding that a plaintiff who files a claim under the state's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)...more
On August 1, 2024, in Turrieta v. Lyft et al., the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action does not have a right to intervene -- or to object to or vacate a judgment...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court ruled that an isolated, one-time, use of a racial slur may be so severe—when viewed in relation to the totality of the circumstances—as to alter the conditions of employment,...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
On July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision that could provide courts in the state with significant discretion to refuse to enforce employment arbitration agreements even if only one term is determined...more
On July 1, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), a statute that has created headaches for employers and driven up wage and hour litigation...more
Aggrieved employee is any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. An “aggrieved employee” is any person who was employed by the alleged violator...more
California employers can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The long-awaited and much-needed Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) reform has arrived. While the reform falls well short of the ballot initiative efforts to...more
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
Meagan Bainbridge and Lukas Clary from Weintraub Tobin's Labor and Employment Group dive into the California Supreme Court case Huerta vs. CSI Electrical Contractors. Discover the key takeaways for employers on compensable...more
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors. This ruling provides important guidance as to what does and does not constitute sufficient employer control to make...more
In a significant victory for employers, the California Supreme Court recently held that if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing complete and accurate wage statements in compliance with wage...more
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
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
In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer...more
On May 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of California held that when an employer “reasonably and in good faith” believes it complied with California’s legal requirement to provide accurate wage statements and it does not, the...more
At Meyers Nave, we prioritize assisting our clients in establishing and maintaining wage and hour policies that comply with legal standards. This includes implementing effective systems and processes to ensure all levels of...more
This week, the California Supreme Court filed a decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., S279397, holding that “an employer’s objectively reasonable, good faith belief that it has provided employees with...more
On Monday May 7, the California Supreme Court confirmed, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Securities Services, Inc., S279397.PDF (ca.gov), that penalties authorized under Labor Code Section 226 (“Section 226”) for “knowing and...more