Under AB 2188, beginning Jan. 1, 2024, California employers will be prohibited from discriminating against employees for off-duty cannabis use.
Continue Reading California Will Soon Protect Employees’ Off-Duty Cannabis Use
Putting the Brakes on Commercial Truckers as Independent Contractors in California
In a blow to California’s commercial trucking industry, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that California law relating to whether workers can be classified as employees is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (the “FAAAA”). As a result, it will remain difficult under California’s current test for transportation companies to establish
Rethinking Meal Break Class Certification After Calif. Ruling
Much has been written cautioning employers about the twin holdings of Donohue v. AMN Services LLC, in which the California Supreme Court said on Feb. 25 that employers “cannot engage in the practice of rounding time punches … in the meal period context,” and a “rebuttable presumption of meal period violations” will apply when
Donohue – Rethinking California Meal Period Claims
On Feb. 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC. The opinion answers two important questions: (1) whether “employers can[] engage in the practice of rounding time punches – that is, adjusting the hours that an employee has actually worked to the nearest preset time increment
A Look At Worker Classification As Calif. Faces $15 Min. Wage
The U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a bill to implement a national $15 per hour minimum wage as part of President Joe Biden’s initial legislative push. And while currently at a national tipping point, for California, the legislative path has already been paved.
Continue reading the full article, originally published Feb. 17 by
California Revamps its Reopening Criteria for Businesses and Activities
On Friday, August 28, 2020, Governor Newsom unveiled the state’s new tiered system for identifying and reducing COVID-19 infection risks in each county. This new “blueprint” is aimed at reducing instances of COVID-19 by imposing revised criteria for both easing and tightening restrictions on the activities of California residents and businesses.
Under the new system, which goes into effect on Monday, August 31st and replaces the “County Monitoring List” approach, each county is assigned to one of four tiers – Minimal, Moderate, Substantial, or Widespread. These tiers are assigned based on the percentage of new daily cases and the percentages of positive tests.
Continue Reading California Revamps its Reopening Criteria for Businesses and Activities
AB5 Update: California Legislature Seeks Shake-Up of Gig Economy; Any Impact of CA Independent Contractor Laws on Franchisors Remains Unclear
On Sept. 18, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) into law. AB5, effective Jan. 1, 2020, seeks to codify and clarify a California Supreme Court case (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles), which dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified
2 Steps Forward, 1 Step Back: California Supreme Court Nixes Plaintiffs’ Ability to Recover Unpaid Wages Under PAGA, but Forecloses Defendants’ Path to Arbitration
On Sept. 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson) delivered a victory for California employers, clarifying that a plaintiff bringing a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action may not recover as a “civil penalty” the “wages” referenced in Cal. Labor Code section 558, and thereby
California Supreme Court Holds California Statutes and Wage Orders do not Incorporate FLSA De Minimis Doctrine; Declines to Decide Whether De Minimis Principle May Ever Apply to Wage and Hour Claims
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, in which it considered the applicability of the de minimis doctrine to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The de minimis doctrine is an application of the legal maxim that “the law does not concern
California Supreme Court’s Kirby Decision: If Money Talks, is This Another Post-Brinker Blow to Meal and Rest Period Claims?
On April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the fee shifting provisions of California Labor Code sections 128.5 and 1194 do not apply to claims for wages made pursuant California Labor Code section 226.7 for failure to authorize meal and/or rest periods. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., ____ Cal. 4th ___ (2012).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court’s Kirby Decision: If Money Talks, is This Another Post-Brinker Blow to Meal and Rest Period Claims?