Labor & Employment Law Blog

Natural disasters are something that many don’t think about until it’s too late, particularly in the context of their business obligations, but as extreme winds, wildfires, and power outages continue to pick up in California, employers should consider what obligations exist as to their employees and employment law.

In Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, et al., a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that a settlement agreement between a doctor and his former employer violated Cal. Prof. & Bus. Code § 16600 because a “no re-hire” provision of the agreement placed a “restraint of a substantial character” on the doctor’s medical practice.

On July 25, 2016, the judge in Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, et al., (Case No. 16 CECG 02107) denied Nisei Farmers League’s motion for preliminary injunction.  Accordingly, the temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the filing deadline to participate in the AB 1513 (codified as Labor Code section 226.2) “safe harbor” expired.  The deadline ...

On June 30, 2016, the judge in Fresno Superior Court presiding over the Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, et al., (Case No. 16 CECG 02107) issued a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the July 1st filing deadline of the “safe harbor” provisions of Labor Code section 226.2 (the piece rate law).  The Nisei Farmers League filed for preliminary ...

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:

Many employers understandably seek to regulate employees' use of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to communicate about the employer or about workplace issues. As we previously reported here, for example, the National Labor Relations Board has recently determined in several cases that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act either by adopting policies the NLRB considers to be an ...

As we previously reported here, a report issued by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, shows that employment cases were the most frequently filed class actions, representing 29.3% of the class actions filed and that over half of the employment cases filed alleged violations of Labor Code provisions governing payment of wages, rest and meal periods, and related claims. This is consistent with our experience representing numerous employers against such class action lawsuits.