In April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903, 916-17 and set forth the standards for determining independent contractor status for purposes of the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Court presumed that a worker is an employee unless he or

The California Supreme Court has held that, under state law, when an employee earns a flat sum bonus during a pay period, the overtime pay rate will be calculated using the actual number of non-overtime hours worked by the employee during the pay period. Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 1123 (Cal. Mar.

Four drivers who transported cargo from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles were misclassified as independent contractors and subjected to illegal paycheck deductions, a California Court of Appeal has held.  Garcia et al. v. Seacon Logix, Inc., No. B248227 (July 16, 2015) (unpublished).  This case reiterates a simple, yet important principle of employment law: notwithstanding the express language in an “Independent Contractor Agreement,” workers are employees—and not independent contractors—if the business controls the manner and means of their work. 
Continue Reading

Last year the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) initiated a campaign, entitled “Wage Theft is a Crime,” to educate California workers about the complexities of California’s wage laws. DIR Director Christine Baker stated that the “department’s mission is to protect California’s workers with comprehensive labor laws and enforcement focused on businesses that intentionally skirt the law.” The department’s recent effort is the “Wage Theft is a Crime” campaign which encourages workers, especially those in low-wage industries, to report possible labor code violations within the workplace. In support of this program, educational materials have been distributed through local events, mailings, and digital and print media in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hmong and Tagalog.
Continue Reading

The California Division of Labor Standards & Enforcement (“DLSE”) has published additional FAQs regarding California’s new Paid Sick Leave law.  These FAQs, dated January 2015, can be found here.  Below is a summary of the DLSE’s FAQs:

  • The Wage Theft Prevention Act Notice (“Notice”):  The new Paid Sick Leave law is clear that employees hired after January 1, 2015 are to be provided the State’s new Notice pursuant to Cal. Labor Code section 2810.5 at the time of hire.  Linked here is the State’s template Notice.  However, the law is unclear as to whether employers must issue the new notice to employees hired pre-January 1, 2015.  The supplemental FAQs address this issue as follows:
    • If the employer changes or institutes a new Paid Sick Leave policy, then employers must provide to employees hired prior to January 1, 2015 a new Notice within seven days of the change, or alternatively, provide individual notice to such employees using an alternative authorized method.   The FAQs do not specifically address what an authorized alternative method is.
      Continue Reading

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s website has been updated to include Frequently Asked Questions on California’s new Paid Sick Leave law, as well as a revised Wage Theft Prevention Act Notice and workplace poster. Both the Wage Theft Prevention Act Notice and workplace poster are effective January 1, 2015, even though the entitlement to

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") has released a Frequently Asked Questions and a form notice that is compliant with the new California Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011.  Effective January 1, 2012, the Act requires employers to provide many new employees with written notice that details their rates of pay, employer name

For the first time, a California appellate court has addressed when paid leave offered as a sabbatical is considered “paid vacation.” The distinction is important because California has long held that separating employees must be paid for any accrued “paid vacation," whereas leave granted as part of a true sabbatical may be forfeited if not used