The California Governor signed into law AB 1964 which amends the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) to prohibit discrimination against individuals for the wearing of religious dress or the practice of religious grooming in the workplace. The FEHA already prohibits discrimination against “religious belief” or “observance.” However, the new amendment expressly states that religious dress
Legal Articles
Non-Compete Clause Can Be Unenforceable Where Not Sufficiently Related to Business Sale
A California Court of Appeal has ruled that a non-compete agreement executed as part of a business sale was unenforceable under California law because it was insufficiently related to the sale. Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas, No. G045057 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug 24, 2012). Non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable in California. A limited exception…
The Elimination of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission Provides Far Greater Authority to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
In a move intended to reduce spending and increase efficiency amid continuing budget difficulties, Governor Brown recently signed Senate Bill 1038 which will, among other things, eliminate the Fair Employment and Housing Commission effective January 1, 2013. The duties of the Commission, primarily rulemaking and the administrative adjudication of discrimination claims, will be assumed in…
Ninth Circuit Looks to the California Supreme Court for Clarification of the Commission Overtime Exemption
The Ninth Circuit has recently requested the California Supreme Court to address the proper method of calculating employee commission payments to determine qualification for California’s commission salesperson exemption set forth in the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order Nos. 4 and 7. An employee generally can qualify for this exemption if: (1) they work for…
Another California Court of Appeal Upholds Arbitration Despite NLRB’s Opinion in D.R. Horton
Another California Court of Appeal provides employers with a victory with respect to the enforcement of arbitration agreements. Affirming an order compelling arbitration in a class action for California Labor Code violations, a California Court of Appeal ruled that the employee was required to arbitrate her individual wage and hour claims against her employer because…
Pull Up A Seat And Enjoy This Recent Victory for California Employers
After previously denying class certification, a California district court recently dismissed an action against CVS Pharmacy seeking penalties under the Private Attorney General Act for failing to provide its retail clerks with suitable seating. In Kilby v. CVS Pharmacies, Inc., the Court granted CVS’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that section 14(A) of the…
Positive Development: California Court of Appeal Declines to Follow NLRB Decision, D.R. Horton, and enforces Class Action Waiver in an Arbitration Agreement and Prohibits PAGA Claims
While likely subject to appeal by the plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, California employers received a welcome decision by a California Court of Appeal. The Court upheld a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement and also found the plaintiff could not bring claims under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) in light of…
New Age Discrimination Case – Sometimes a Victory is Not Always a Victory
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer in an age discrimination case. However, not all news is good news regarding the Court’s decision in Schechner v. KPIX-TV, No. 11-15294 (9th Cir. May 29,2012). The Court “clarified” that the employees could use statistical evidence to establish a…
California Court of Appeal Clarifies Personal Attendant Overtime Exemption
A good case for employers was recently issued with respect to the Personal Attendant overtime exemption. On May 14, 2012, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that an individual who is exempt from overtime under the Personal Attendant overtime exemption with respect to Wage Order 15 is not disqualified from the exemption …
Kirby v. Immoos: California Supreme Court Holds Prevailing Parties Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees in Meal And Rest Break Lawsuits
In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court recently held in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) that employees and employers may not recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a lawsuit for meal or rest break payments under Labor Code § 226.7.
The Court analyzed …