The California Supreme Court has narrowed application of the “commission exemption” from overtime, dealing employers a setback in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. S204804 (Cal. Jul. 14, 2014). Under Wage Orders 4 and 7, sales employees who earn more than 50 percent of their wages in commission and earn at least 1.5
CA Division of Workers’ Compensation Posts Updated Time of Hire Pamphlet in Spanish
The California Division of Workers’ Compensation posted a corrected Spanish language time of hire pamphlet on its website. The previously posted Spanish language version contained some outdated information. We recommend employers download the new pamphlet for their new hire packets.
Employers should ensure they provide all the upon hire pamphlets required by California. If
Undocumented Worker Not Barred from Asserting Discrimination Claims
In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., No. S196568 (Cal. June 26, 2014), the California Supreme Court has ruled that federal immigration law did not preempt California law extending employee protections and remedies “regardless of immigration status,” except to the extent it authorized damages for any period after the employer’s discovery of an employee’s ineligibility
Recovery Periods, Like Rest Periods, are Compensable Time
New law SB 1360 has clarified that recovery periods, like rest periods, are paid time. This is a significant clarification of the law since there was an ambiguity in the past whether recovery periods were to be treated as paid time or unpaid time. Until now, the situation was unclear as recovery periods were mandated by California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) regulations, not the California Labor Code.
Continue Reading Recovery Periods, Like Rest Periods, are Compensable Time
Reminder to Employers: California State Minimum Wage Change is Effective July 1, 2014
Although many employers are aware of the upcoming change to the California state minimum wage, here is one last reminder. The California state minimum wage will increase to $9.00 an hour starting July 1, 2014 and up to $10.00 per hour by January 1, 2016.
In July 2014, the minimum salary test for the Executive,
California Governor Signs SB 435 Which Expands the One Hour Pay Penalty in Labor Code 226.7 to Missed “Recovery Periods”
Labor Code 226.7 provides that an employee should receive one hour of pay as a penalty for not receiving rest or meal periods in accordance with California law. Yesterday, Governor Brown signed into law SB 435 which expands the one hour of pay penalty to missed “recovery periods.” The new law applies to any meal,
On September 25th, CA Governor Will Sign AB 10 to Increase the CA State Minimum Wage
California Governor Brown has announced he will sign AB 10 tomorrow, in LA and Oakland, which will increase the CA state minimum wage effective July 1, 2014. See Brown’s statement: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18221. Since many employers are engaged in budgeting for 2014 and beyond, this new development should be factored into such plans.
Court Rules Common Issues Didn’t Dominate in Proposed Class
Class certification is unwarranted where auto center managers and assistant managers alleged they were improperly classified as exempt and denied overtime and meal and rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Statistical Sampling Could Not Establish Liability in Wage-Hour
Certain Communications with Represented Parties Allowed
The California Court of Appeal has held in a case under the California False Claims Act (FCA) that California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, generally prohibiting an attorney, directly or indirectly, from communicating with a represented party, including the party’s employees, did not apply to prohibit communications between two qui tam plaintiffs and the defendant-employer’s current
Discrimination as a Substantial Motivating Factor in Mixed Motive Cases
A positive development for employers. To establish liability in “mixed motive” employment discrimination cases under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the employee must show that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision, the California Supreme Court ruled. Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004 (Cal. Feb.