In a decision that should not go unnoticed in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC which rejected prior limitations on class action waivers but held representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act cannot be waived, the California Court of Appeal in Malone v. Superior Court (California Bank & Trust), Case No. B253891 (June 17, 2014) upheld an employer’s delegation clause requiring issues relating to the enforceability of an employer’s arbitration agreement to be sent to the arbitrator for resolution. While the U.S. Supreme Court continues to uphold arbitration provisions pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), California courts have been reluctant to follow the Supreme Court’s clear guidance. Malone suggests the California tide is beginning to turn in favor of arbitration.
Continue Reading California Tide is Turning in Favor of Arbitration
First Do No Harm – Dental Practice Goes Too Far in its Communications to Employees About Class Action
No employer welcomes the news that it’s just been served with a wage and hour class action. Many employers naturally desire to communicate with their employees to provide their perspective and to explain why employees may not want to participate in the class action. Before launching such employee communications, however, companies should always consult with
Court Easily Finds Sufficient Allegations of Willful FLSA Violations, Denies Dismissal Motion
We’ve seen the claim often in class action wage hour disputes over proper classification of workers: the plaintiff and those similarly situated could not have been exempt managers because the employer didn’t provide adequate staffing, and so plaintiff had to spend more of her time as a worker bee than as a manager because the
California District Court Holds that Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act Preempts Drivers’ Minimum Wage Claims
J.B. Hunt Transportation, like many trucking companies, pays its drivers “a certain amount for every mile they drive, in addition to lump sums for every delivery they make.” Consequently, “drivers are not directly compensated for certain job-related activities, including loading and unloading freight, or waiting for a customer.” Relying on Armenta v. Osmose Inc.,
New Event: Wage and Hour Update: What You Need to Know Now to Avoid Claims in 2014 (San Francisco, Palo Alto and Walnut Creek)
Worried about potential wage and hour issues at your company? Do you stay awake at night wondering whether you’ve properly classified your independent contractors or whether your non-exempt employees are using their smartphones from home? Have no fear, as you will come away from this presentation with a better understanding of how to navigate the
Spanish-Speaking Employees and English Arbitration Agreements
On April 21, 2014, a California Appellate Court held that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable and an employer cannot compel arbitration when the employer failed to translate the entirety of an English-language employment agreement containing an arbitration agreement, confidentiality clause, and enforceability provision for its Spanish-speaking employees.
In Esteban H. Carmona et al. v. Lincoln
10 Rules of Startup Employment Labor Law
Originally posted by SmartRecruiters Blog, the leading source for how to hire on the web. To view the original post, please click here.
So you’re a startup. You’ve decided to take your world-changing idea and move it out of your dorm room/garage/favorite-table-at-Starbucks and start a legitimate business. So what next?
If you plan on
Proposed Amendment to Labor Code Section 226 Could Permit Employers to Recover Attorneys’ Fees
California Labor Code section 226 requires employers to provide accurate wage statements, and enumerates specific requirements for such wage statements. The statute also provides for penalties should an employer violate section 226, and allows a prevailing employee to recover attorneys’ fees in connection with prosecuting claims for alleged wage statement violations.
On May 6, 2014,
California Courts Continue to Embrace Binding Arbitration Agreements
With increasing frequency, California courts (especially federal district courts) are enforcing binding arbitration agreements between employers and employees. In Richards v. Ernst & Young, No. 11-17530 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the employee’s wage and hour claims. In so
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