(Podcast) California Employment News: Minimum Wage Increases for 2025
California Employment News: Minimum Wage Increases for 2025
Constangy Clips Ep. 4 - 3 Things that Keep your Labor and Employment Lawyer Up at Night
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
#WorkforceWednesday®: FTC Exits Labor Pact, EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in Tech, Sixth Circuit Affirms NLRB Ruling - Employment Law This Week®
(Podcast) California Employment News – Key Rules for California Employers: Business Expense Reimbursement
California Employment News – Key Rules for California Employers: Business Expense Reimbursement
#WorkforceWednesday®: DOL Authority Challenged - Key Rulings on Overtime and Tip Credit - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Why You Need Policies for Temps and Other Contractors
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 30: Plaintiff Legal Trends with Paul Porter of Cromer, Babb & Porter
What's the Tea in L&E? Mouse Jigglers: WFH Fraud
The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law Updates
#WorkforceWednesday® - State Legal Trends: Crucial Changes for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 27: The Importance of Employment Counsel in Corporate Transactions with Laura Mallory and Ashley Parr of Maynard Nexsen
California Employment News - Navigating the New PAGA Reforms: What Employers Need to Know
California Employment News - Navigating the New PAGA Reforms: What Employers Need to Know (Podcast)
Employment Law Now VIII-145 – Status Update: Injunctions for FTC Non-Compete Ban and DOL Overtime Exemption Regs
California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week®
Hospice Labor and Employment Trends - Get Up to Speed Fast: What You Need to Know About the New Rules Involving Non-Competes and Exempt Employees
Seyfarth Synopsis: While reversing a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer based on the de minimis doctrine, the Ninth Circuit held that the doctrine still can apply under the FLSA....more
In Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the circumstances under which donning and doffing activities by employees may be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). ...more
For decades, the Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized the impracticability of requiring Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) nonexempt employees to clock in exactly at the beginning of their scheduled shifts. In most...more
I read an interesting blog post by Seyfarth Shaw on a working time case in a call center. I have often blogged about working time cases, preliminary/postliminary cases, and have lamented that the de minimis doctrine, often...more
In Part 2 of our blog series highlighting some of the risks for employers when pay and time practices don’t comport with wage and hour laws, the case details and key takeaways below should provide West Coast employers...more
Although the unpaid time employees spent booting up their computers was relatively small, it was compensable and the employer failed to establish the practical administrative difficulty of estimating the time at issue, which...more
In this blog series, we’ll look at a variety of activities and discuss whether an employer has to pay its non-exempt (i.e., overtime-eligible) employees for their time spent engaging in them. We’ll focus on federal law, but...more
I have been writing about wage hour issues that are implicated or raised by the continuing COVID-19 situation. Well, here’s another one. I warn that as businesses start to open up (or not), employees (and, more to the point,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: With apologies to Dr. Seuss, we’ve penned an ode to the judicial chaos of the year just past, highlighted by three California Supreme Court decisions—Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., Dynamex Operations v....more
It’s hard to keep up with the news these days. It sometimes feels like you can’t step away from your phone, computer, or TV for more than an hour or so without a barrage of new information hitting the headlines—and you’re...more
Smartphones have changed the employment landscape. Non-exempt employees can communicate via text or email any time of day or night, and may be expected to. My habit in the evenings is to check my work email, even if only to...more
Starbucks to Face Suit Over De Minimis Time - Why it matters - A putative class action against Starbucks will move forward after the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit applied the reasoning of the California Supreme...more
This past summer, in a high-profile case brought against Starbucks, the California Supreme Court resolved an open question concerning compensable time. Or, at least it did to some extent. The court held that California...more
In July, the California Supreme Court announced that various provisions of the Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders did not incorporate the de minimis doctrine. According to that doctrine, some alleged wrongs are so trivial or...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
Once again, California's Supreme Court has underscored that California employment law can differ from federal law in significant, and typically more employee friendly, ways. In Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation,1 a...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
Usually legislative and regulatory developments slow down in the summer months, which is good news because July brings more pressing matters than reading bills or proposed rules, like eating too many hot dogs or yelling at an...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
It is a small world after all. Last week, the California Supreme Court decided that the de minimus rule, imported by the U.S. Supreme Court into the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1946 (Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery...more