Labor & Employment Law Blog

Two recent decisions by California courts concluded employees who signed pre-dispute arbitration agreements with their employers could not be compelled to arbitrate their individual PAGA (the Private Attorney’s General Act of 2004 [Labor Code section 2698, et seq.]) claims against their employer.

Recently, after years of litigation, the California Court of Appeal published its decision approving See’s Candy Shops, Inc.’s (“See’s”) rounding and grace-period policies.  (Silva v. See’s Candy Shops, Inc. (2016) 7 Cal. App. 5th 235).

The court previously approved See’s rounding policy in 2012, in See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, but left open the ...

On February 8, 2017, the Supreme Court announced it will schedule oral arguments in its review of class action waivers in the 2017 Supreme Court session, which starts in October.  In January, the Court announced it would review three cases involving whether class action waivers that are required as a condition of employment in individual employee arbitration agreements violate federal labor law.

In 2012, the ...

On January 13, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of an employee of San Diego Miramar College who was released for “job abandonment” while out on medical leave. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the College, holding a reasonable fact-finder could conclude the College retaliated against the employee for taking medical leave protected under the California ...

On January 21, 2015, the California Court of Appeal held that the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) did not fail to reasonably accommodate an employee, Tony Nealy, where Nealy was unable to perform the essential functions of the job and there were no alternate positions for which Nealy was qualified.  Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, (California Ct App 02/13/2015).  The court also found that the City did not have ...

On September 2, 2014, a California appellate court upheld an order requiring a college math professor to undergo a “fitness for duty examination” (“FFD”) based on behavior that his colleagues considered erratic and threatening in nature.  The court also rebuffed the efforts of the professor’s attorneys to interject themselves into the workplace dispute by placing conditions on the FFD.  The ...

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. . . .

On July 21, 2014, a California appellate court ordered a real estate agent of a brokerage firm to arbitrate his claim that he was improperly classified as an independent contractor and not an employee.  Galen v. Redfin Corporation. The court held that the Scott Galen’s claims for unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate and untimely wage statements, waiting time penalties, and ...

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:

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.