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
On May 6, 2024, California LawCalifornia’s Supreme Court, in a rare and surprising “employer friendly” decision, held that an employer can avoid penalties under California’s wage statement law, Cal. Lab. Code § 226, if it...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
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
On October 24, 2022, the Sixth District issued a decision in in Camp v. Home Depot, handing employees a major win in the wage and hour arena by holding that Home Depot’s practice of rounding hourly employees’ total daily...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
In ZB, N.A., and Zions Bancorporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. S246711, __ Cal. 5th __, 2019 WL 4309684 (Cal. 2019) (ZB), the California Supreme Court held on Sept. 12, 2019, that California's Labor Code...more
This edition of Employment Flash looks at a series of recent NLRB decisions, many of which apply to all employers, not just those with unionized employees. We also discuss other U.S. federal and state labor and...more
In a surprising decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled that Plaintiffs in Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) cases cannot recover for their own or their fellow employees’ unpaid wages, but instead are limited to...more
In resolving a growing split among California courts, the California Supreme Court in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court faced the issue of whether actions for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 brought under the Private...more
In a significant victory for California employers who use arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court ruled (ZB, N.A. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, S246711 (September 12, 2019)) that the recovery of...more
Yesterday September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court held that private litigants may not recover unpaid wages under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson) (Cal....more
Are you familiar with PAGA? Do you have a PAGA claim for unpaid wages filed against you right now? If yes, this recent California Supreme Court case may apply to you. (ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court)....more
This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more
On December 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Hospital that section 11(D) of Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 5, which permits health care...more
In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court recently held that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. As a follow-up to our recent...more
This month’s key California employment law cases are from the California Supreme Court and from the California Court of Appeal. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 (2018) - Summary: Employer that requires...more
California employers cannot require employees to routinely work — even for just minutes — off-the-clock without compensation, according to the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Troester v. Starbucks. ...more
Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more
Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking decision that severely limits employers’ ability to rely on the ‘de minimis’ doctrine as a defense to not paying for minimal increments of off-the-clock...more
The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more