On May 19, 2015, the Los Angeles City Council passed proposed legislation to considerably increase the City of Los Angeles’ minimum wage. The measure—which was approved by an overwhelming 14-1 vote—directs the City Attorney to write an Ordinance that will, if approved by a final vote of the Council and then the Mayor, increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2020.
Continue Reading Los Angeles Minimum Wage Set to Increase to $15 Per Hour by 2020
Follow-up on: Be Careful What You Say—It Might End Up in a Declaration to Defeat Summary Judgment
In a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the court held that “a piece of evidence [may not be disregarded] at the summary judgment stage solely based on its self-serving nature.” As a result, declarations created after summary judgment motions are filed may be sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact and, therefore, defeat summary judgment. This decision is particularly concerning because it allows a party to thwart summary judgment with little to no credible or corroborated evidence.
Continue Reading Follow-up on: Be Careful What You Say—It Might End Up in a Declaration to Defeat Summary Judgment
California Supreme Court: California Employers Face New Challenge In Recovering Post-Litigation Costs
On May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that a prevailing defendant in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) lawsuit can only recover ordinary litigation costs if it demonstrates that the plaintiff’s FEHA claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. (Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Distr. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2015), Case No. S213100). Prior to this ruling, a majority of California courts had ruled that a prevailing defendant in a FEHA case could recover costs as a matter of right. As such, the Williams case significantly changes California’s employment litigation landscape by making cost shifting even more one-sided in favor of employees.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court: California Employers Face New Challenge In Recovering Post-Litigation Costs
California Appellate Court Holds that Federal Law Does Not Preempt California’s Meal and Rest Break Requirements for Truck Drivers
On October 28, 2014, a California Court of Appeal held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) does not preempt California’s meal and rest break requirements as applied to motor carriers. [Godfrey v. Oakland Port Services Corp. (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 28, 2014) Case No. A139274.]
In Godfrey, the plaintiffs
Precluding Plaintiffs in Separate Lawsuits from Observing One Another’s Depositions: An Uphill Battle
A recent discovery order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California suggests that employers seeking to prevent plaintiffs with related lawsuits (i.e., separate lawsuits, but arising from the same circumstances) from sitting in on one another’s depositions, or reading one another’s deposition transcripts, will need to provide a “particular and specific” basis for doing so.
Continue Reading Precluding Plaintiffs in Separate Lawsuits from Observing One Another’s Depositions: An Uphill Battle
California Broadens Immigration-Related Retaliation Protections
California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law AB 2751, a “clean up” bill that expands the bases and remedies for immigrant-related retaliation, and clarifies the penalty and employee information provisions of AB 263 and SB 666.
AB 263 and SB 666 were enacted last year to protect immigrant workers against unlawful retaliation. These two bills have since operated in conjunction to prohibit employers from engaging in various “immigration-related practices” against employees who had exercised certain rights protected under state labor and employment laws. These “unfair immigration-related practices” included threatening to file or filing a false police report or threatening to contact or contacting immigration authorities in retaliation for some protected activity engaged in by the employee (e.g., filing a workplace complaint).
Continue Reading California Broadens Immigration-Related Retaliation Protections
California Court of Appeal Holds That Retired Employees Can Also Subject Employers to Waiting Time Penalties
On August 19, 2014, a California Court of Appeal held that the requirements of Labor Code sections 202 and 203 apply not only to employees who quit, but also to employees who retire. In McLean v. State of California et al., No. C074515 (Cal. Aug. 19, 2014), the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all employees employed by the State of California who retired from their employment between November 2010 and March 2011, who did not receive prompt payment of wages as required by Labor Code section 202. Among other things, the putative class sought waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203. At the trial level, the defendants’ demurrer was sustained without leave to amend because the plain text of Labor Code section 202 requires prompt payment of wages owed only for employees who “quit his or her employment.” Because the putative class sought penalties for retired employees, the trial court determined that the employer could not have violated Labor Code section 202. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal reversed and found that the term “quit” in Labor Code section 202 also encompasses retired employees.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Holds That Retired Employees Can Also Subject Employers to Waiting Time Penalties
Labor Code Sections 203 and 1190.2 Amended
The California Legislature has returned from its summer recess, with a fairly large number of employment bills to consider before the August 31st deadline. Although the majority of bills introduced in 2014 remain pending, the Legislature hit the ground running passing several bills on to California Governor Jerry Brown who has either vetoed or signed them into law.
Continue Reading Labor Code Sections 203 and 1190.2 Amended
Cal OSH Board Proposes Revisions to Heat Prevention Regulations
On August 8, 2014, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (“Cal OSH Board”) proposed revisions to its Heat Prevention Regulations at Title 8, Section 3395 (“Section 3395”). According to the Cal OSH Board, the revisions are aimed at improving worker safety in all outdoor places of employment and reducing the incidence of heat illness. Although the proposed revisions have not yet been adopted, outdoor employers should closely watch the Board’s upcoming actions because the revisions may require them to invest significant resources to change their programs, training, and approach to the prevention of heat illness.
Continue Reading Cal OSH Board Proposes Revisions to Heat Prevention Regulations
Proposed Amendment to Labor Code: Three-Year Statute of Limitations on Liquidated Damages Claim for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
Last week, California’s legislature submitted a bill for the Governor’s approval, Assembly Bill 2074, which would amend Labor Code section 1194.2 dealing with the provision of liquidated damages arising out of an employer’s failure to pay minimum wage.
Employees who believe their employer did not pay them all of their wages may bring a civil lawsuit seeking several forms of damages, including liquidated damages for failing to pay minimum wage. Liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2(a) are comprised of “an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon” (i.e., on top of the unpaid wages and penalties, employees may obtain another set of damages equivalent to the unpaid wages plus interest).Continue Reading Proposed Amendment to Labor Code: Three-Year Statute of Limitations on Liquidated Damages Claim for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage