Recently, the 9th Circuit applied, in an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court’s broad definition of minister for purposes of the “ministerial exception.” Under the ministerial exception, religious institutions have a First Amendment right “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”
A California appellate court held an employer’s use of a rounding policy for its non-exempt employees complied with California law because it did not disfavor employees. (Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (Dec. 10, 2018) Case No. D071865.)
AMN employed Donohue as a nurse recruiter who was non-exempt from California’s overtime requirements. AMN tracked recruiters’ …
The California Supreme Court has upheld the ability of California health care workers who work more than twelve hours a day voluntarily to waive their second meal period, rebuffing plaintiffs’ argument that their voluntary waivers were unenforceable. (Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (Dec. 10, 2018) Case No. S241655.)
The Labor Code generally …
Denying class certification in an action for alleged meal period violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001 (“Wage Order 5”), the California Court of Appeal ruled that a 24-hour residential care facility for developmentally disabled individuals did not have a policy that violated wage and hour laws common to the class members. Palacio v. Jan & Gail’s Care Homes, Inc. Specifically, the Court ruled that the residential care facility did not need to inform employees whom it required to waive their right to uninterrupted meal periods and eat their meals with the residents under Section 11(E) of Wage Order 5, that the employees could revoke the waiver at any time under Section 11(A).
Continue Reading No Class Action for Residential Care Facility Employees Over On-Duty Meal Periods
The California Court of Appeal ruled that an automobile dealership that translated a sales contract into Spanish, but neglected to include the arbitration clause in the translated agreement, could not enforce the arbitration agreement. Ramos v. Westlake Services, LLC, A141353. Although the case involved a commercial transaction, it has important implications for employers who use arbitration agreements with employees whose primary language is other than English.
Continue Reading Inaccurate Translation Invalidates Arbitration Agreement
A California appellate court recently held that an employee diagnosed with an adjustment disorder triggered by stress caused by her supervisor’s standard oversight of her job performance is not disabled under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation, 2015 Cal.App.LEXIS 455 (May 26, 2015). In so doing, the court bucked the current trend of expanding protection of employees unable to work due to medical conditions.
Continue Reading Court Holds Adjustment Disorder Triggered by Stress at Work Is Not a Disability
San Francisco has enacted an ordinance designed to require large retail chains to provide more predictability to their workers. The ordinance, entitled the “Predictable Scheduling and Fair Treatment for Formula Retail Employees Ordinance,” will become operative on July 5, 2015. You can access a copy of the ordinance here: San Francisco Ordinance-Amended-111814.
The ordinance will apply to retail sales establishments that have 20 or more employees in San Francisco, have 20 or more establishments worldwide, and maintain two or more of the following features: a standardized array of merchandise, a standardized façade, a standardized décor and color scheme, uniform apparel, standardized signage, or a trademark or servicemark.
Continue Reading San Francisco Enacts So-Called “Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights”