On February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, S253677 decided two questions of law relating to meal periods: first, “that employers cannot engage in the practice of rounding time punches – that is, adjusting the hours that an...
Employment
Beware Employers – Dynamex (ABC Test) Applies Retroactively
After nearly two years of uncertainty as to whether the independent contractor test (“ABC test”) of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) would be applied retroactively, on January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court in Vasquez v....
Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements are Enforceable
Today, the United States Supreme Court finally resolved the split of authority among federal circuit courts as to the enforceability of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. In issuing its much anticipated opinion in NLRB v. Murphy Oil Co., Ernst...
Factoring a Flat Sum Bonus Into An Employee’s Overtime Pay Rate
Under California law, an employer is obligated to pay an overtime premium for work in excess of eight hours in a day, 40 hours in a weeks, or for any work at all on a seventh consecutive day. See Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California, 4 Cal.5th 542, 553...
Employers Beware -Post-Dynamex, the Classification of Workers as Independent Contractors Will be Met With Greater Scrutiny
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018 Cal. LEXIS 3152) wherein it decided what standard applies, under California law, to determine whether workers should be classified as employees...
DOL Issues First Opinion Letters in Nearly a Decade – FLSA2018-19
For the first time in nearly a decade, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor issued several Opinion Letters, including one addressing the compensability of fifteen minute rest breaks required every hour due to a non-exempt employee's serious...
An Employee’s Prior Salary Cannot Justify a Wage Differential Between Male and Female Employees
In Rizo v. Yovino, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8882 (April 9, 2018), the en banc court held that "prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential. To hold otherwise - to allow employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage...
Employer Alert: SB 396 Expands Harassment Training Requirements
The Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") currently requires that employers with 50 or more employees provide sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees. This training must first take place within six months of promotion/hire to the supervisory...
An Exception to the Exception – The Special Errand Rule
In Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 915, Plaintiffs and appellants Morales-Simental, et al. appealed from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant and respondent Genentech, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries and...
Employees May Recover Penalties for Inadvertent Wage Statement Errors Without Any Showing of “Injury”
California Labor Code § 226(a) requires employers to provide accurate, itemized wage statements that show, among other things, gross and net wages earned, total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates, total deductions, the dates of the pay period, and the...