On Wednesday, September 17, 2019, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB 5), limiting when businesses can classify employees as independent contractors.  The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020.  For further information, please click this link.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to discuss the bill and to assist employers in

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019).

This is surprising, as the Court provided this much-needed guidance

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business.

Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin

The California worker classification bill, Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), advanced closer to passage just prior to the Labor Day weekend.

Please recall, AB 5, which is Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez’s proposed legislation regarding worker classification (discussed below and in a prior article by Jackson Lewis here), was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee

The California Supreme Court recently held that the tort claim of conversion is not an appropriate vehicle for plaintiffs seeking recovery of unpaid wages. In Voris v. Lampert (Cal. 2019) Case No. S241812, the plaintiff brought suit against three start-up ventures and two individual defendants to recover wages which had been promised to the plaintiff

In Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court (53 Cal. 4th 1004), the California Supreme Court explained that an employer must relieve the employee of all duty for the designated meal period, but need not ensure that the employee does not work. In other words, no policing of meal breaks by the employer is required; and

The Ninth Circuit recently dismissed California minimum wage and overtime claims in a class action brought by drilling platform worker, Brian Newton, against his former employer, Parker Drilling, following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019).

In that case, the Supreme Court determined

Whether California’s recently adopted “ABC” test, used in the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis in cases involving California’s wage orders, must be applied retroactively should be decided by the California Supreme Court, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided, withdrawing its controversial May 2, 2019, opinion. Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising

Last year, the California Supreme Court held the federal “de minimis” doctrine does not apply to California state law claims for unpaid wages for off-the-clock work allegedly performed on a regularly occurring basis in store closing and related activities. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829. However, the California Supreme Court also noted that