Labor & Employment Law Blog

Seventeen years ago, in 2004, the California Legislature enacted the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).  Appropriately dubbed a “bounty hunter” law, PAGA authorizes any current or former “aggrieved” employee of a California employer to file suit to seek statutory penalties for essentially any violation of the California Labor Code together with attorney’s fees, hence the incentive for plaintiff attorneys to bring such cases.  Specifically, under PAGA a current or former employee who is “aggrieved” by a violation of the California Labor Code can seek in addition to damages and liquidated damages, civil penalties on the employee’s behalf and on behalf of all other similarly “aggrieved” (i.e., affected) current and former employees.  The recoverable civil penalties are up to $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs.  When such penalties are awarded, the plaintiff current or former employee along with all other similar “aggrieved” employee will receive 25% of the penalties together with their attorney’s fees as a “bounty,” with the balance of the penalties payable to a State agency known as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  Click Here to read entire post.

Liability insurance policies typically provide two forms of coverage:  (1) coverage for the defense of lawsuits alleging claims covered by the policy in question, and (2) coverage for the settlement of claims covered by the policy in question that the insurer and the insured agree to for payment of a judgment against the insured when a judgment is the result of a covered claim against the insured.

Many employers purchase Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) polices to protect themselves against employment-related lawsuits by current or former employees or job applicants, such as claims of alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The “Claims Made and Reported” Time Trap.

EPLI policies are often written on a “claims made and ...

The typical workplace bulletin board is densely packed with legally required posters and employee notifications. As laws change, the posters must be updated to reflect the changes. For example, the minimum wage in California increased to $10 an hour on January 1, 2016; the required poster specifying the minimum wage should reflect that most recent increase.

In 2012, Legislature enacted Labor Code section 3701.9 providing that “(a) A certificate of consent to self-insure shall not be issued after January 1, 2013, to any of the following. (1) a professional employer organization (“PEO”).  (2) A leasing employer [“LE”] …. (3) A temporary services employer [“TSE”],” and providing that “A certificate of consent to self-insure that has been ...

On September 10, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, which will require California employers to provide to nearly all employees — exempt and non-exempt — paid sick days effective July 1, 2015.

The Basics: With limited exceptions, beginning July 1, 2015, every employee, whether exempt or non-exempt, who is employed in California for 30 days or more ...

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a franchisor, such as Domino’s Pizza, LLC., can be held vicariously liable for claims of alleged sexual harassment by an employee of a franchisee, such as an individually owned Domino’s Pizza store.  The court framed the issue as follows:  “Does a franchisor stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding it vicariously liable for workplace injuries allegedly inflicted by one employee of a franchisee while supervising another employee of the franchisee?”  The court held a franchisor is not vicariously liable for claims of alleged workplace torts by employees of a franchisee unless. . . .

As we previously reported, most employers in California are subject to the workplace seating requirements contained in the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, which regulate wages, hours, and working conditions in specified industries and as to specified occupations. Wage Orders 1-13 and 15 all contain the following seating requirements:

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR), a statewide firm, announced today that partner Nate Kowalski has again been named to the Daily Journal’s list of the Top 75 Labor & Employment Attorneys in California. This is the second time that Mr. Kowalski has been included among this exclusive group.

Click here for entire article.

In Jesus Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc., plaintiff that alleged he and other purported class members were not paid for all hours worked because the employer rounded employee’s start times in 29 minute increments such that an employee clocking in at 7:31 a.m., would be paid only from 8:00 a.m., onward; that the employer excluded non-discretionary bonuses from the calculation of employees’ overtime rates and thereby improperly depressing the employees’ overtime wages; that the employer willfully failed to pay to employees at the time of termination all wages due and owing and is therefore subject to “waiting time” penalties; and that the wage statements the employer issued to the employees did not accurately state all hours worked and all applicable rates of pay and is therefore subject to wage statement penalties.