California Employment News: A Refresher on Voting Leave Laws for CA Employers
(Podcast) California Employment News: A Refresher on Voting Leave Laws for CA Employers
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 33: Generations in the Workplace with Caroline Warner of The South Carolina Power Team, Part 1
Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law Updates
DE Under 3: Court Held That Workday Was an “Agent” to Employers Licensing its AI Applicant Screening Tools
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv, Part II
Clocking in with PilieroMazza: Second Chance Initiatives: Hiring Workers with Criminal Histories
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 21: Economic, Industry, and Workforce Development in the City of Greenville with Mayor Knox White
Clocking in with PilieroMazza: Labor and Employment News for Government Contractors
The Labor Law Insider: (Scary) Real Life Scenarios – Practical Application, Part II
California Employment News: Overview of the Fast Food Minimum Wage Increase AB1228 (Podcast)
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
New Wave of Pay Transparency Requirements Affects Employers and Federal Contractors
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 11: Understanding Unions with Patrick Wilson, Maynard Nexsen Attorney (Part 1)
The Burr Broadcast: Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Unionization Efforts Explained
California Employment News: Top Developments in Wage and Hour Law for 2024 (Podcast)
California Employment News: Top Developments in Wage and Hour Law for 2024
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 9: Best Practices for Employers with John Saxon, Plaintiff’s Labor & Employment Attorney
What's the Tea in L&E? Weight Discrimination
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
Now That California Courts Have Been Stripped of Authority to Dismiss Unmanageable PAGA Claims, How Will Employers Manage PAGA Litigation? The California Supreme Court, on Jan. 18, issued its decision in Estrada v. Royalty...more
A plaintiff maintains standing to pursue a non-individual PAGA claim in state court when his individual PAGA claim is sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement...more
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal, held that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.” This decision creates a split of authority with Wesson v....more
Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, No. S259172, 2021 WL 2965438 (Cal. Jul. 15, 2021) Summary: The term “regular rate of compensation” under California Labor Code section 226.7 is synonymous with the term “regular rate...more
California employers must include nondiscretionary payments made to employees when making premium payments for missing meal or rest periods, the state’s highest court has ruled in a decision with retroactive application....more
If you have employees in California, it is time to review how you pay them for missed meal and rest breaks. The California Supreme Court's decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, will change the way many companies...more
The California Supreme Court holds that "regular rate of compensation" used for calculating meal and rest period premiums is identical to "regular rate of pay" used for calculating overtime premiums, which includes hourly...more
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court concluded that when an employer fails to provide an employee with a compliant rest or meal break, the employee is entitled to a premium payment of one hour...more
On July 15, 2021, the Supreme Court of California issued a long-awaited decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC. The Court reversed the trial and appellate court holdings and concluded that California employers must...more
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court rejected the longstanding view that meal and rest break premiums are paid at the employee’s base rate, rather than at the more complicated regular rate of...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in Jessica Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC that Labor Code Section 226.7 requires employers to pay meal and rest period premiums for each workday in which they were not...more
As technology has advanced, employers routinely rely on electronic timekeeping software to ensure accurate record keeping. Such software often includes a setting to round employees’ time (typically to the nearest quarter...more
California employers may not apply time-rounding procedures to meal period time entries, based on a recent California Supreme Court decision. ...more
Last November, California voters convincingly (almost 60% supporting) enacted Proposition 22. This Proposition was a well-funded effort that allows gig drivers working for companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash to avoid the...more
The California Supreme Court held on January 14, 2021, that its landmark Dynamex decision, which established a rigid standard under California law for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, and later was...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that the “ABC Test” for classifying workers as independent contractors applies retroactively. The high court first articulated this standard, which makes it tougher for...more
It was quite a week for the gig economy in California. This is the second of a two-part update; last week we reported on a union- and driver-led California Supreme Court challenge to Proposition 22, the November 2020 voter...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc. that the ABC test for determining worker classification fashioned in its groundbreaking decision, Dynamex v. Superior...more
Since April 2018, when the California Supreme Court issued its Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) decision, which radically changed the way in which courts differentiated between an...more
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, the California Supreme Court agreed to review a second case raising questions as to the scope and retroactivity of its landmark 2018 Dynamex decision....more
From the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex to the passage of dozens of new employment laws, 2019 was an important year for California employers. While some of these new laws were discussed here, this...more
On January 1, 2020, California’s new worker classification law known as Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”), goes into effect. AB 5 codifies the three-factor “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in its 2018 Dynamex...more
Under the wage orders issued by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” Although...more