During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Labor & Employment

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Following Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, this decision holds that filing an amended charge with the EEOC does not exhaust administrative remedies under California's FEHA.  Nor did plaintiff properly exhaust his state law administrative remedies by amending his FEHA complaint long after the FEHA had closed its file on the matter.  Moreover, the amended… Read More

Generally, an employee must bring a claim under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act within two years of the violation.  ” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1). This limitation is extended to three years for a “willful violation.” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2).  This decision holds that a violation is willful only if the employer “either knew or showed reckless disregard for… Read More

A minor who signs a contract may disaffirm the contract after reaching 18 years of age. Fam. Code 6710.  Plaintiff in this case signed an employment agreement with an arbitration clause to work as a waitress at a Del Taco restaurant when she was 16 years old.  This decision holds that she retained the right to disaffirm the contract after… Read More

Ohio attorneys were admitted pro hac vice to represent Big Lots in this suit challenging Big Lots' classification of store managers as exempt managerial employees.  The Ohio attorneys then appeared for and represented several former Big Lots store managers at their depositions in the case.  When the plaintiffs brought this fact to the trial court's attention, it revoked the Ohio… Read More

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt California's ABC test for distinguishing between independent contractors and employees, and so that test as adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and codified in Lab. Code 2775 and 2776 governs in determining whether a federally licensed interstate motor carrier has correctly classified its truck… Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this overtime pay case, finding plaintiff had not shown that common issues predominated.  Though there was a common question about whether defendant violated California labor law in calculating the amount of overtime pay (because in computing base pay it divided the flat bonus for weekend worked by… Read More

This decision affirms an order remanding this wage and hour case on the ground that the employer failed to sustain its burden of proving--in response to a factual challenge to its removal notice--that potential damages exceeded $5 million.  A plaintiff may raise a factual challenge by attacking the removing defendant's assumptions, even without providing any contrary assumptions or any evidence… Read More

This decision reverses a judgment confirming an arbitration award.  The arbitrator exceeded his powers by issuing an award that enforced an employment contract's provision that violated the employee's unwaivable statutory rights.  The employment agreement's confidentiality clause was so broadly written that it prohibited the employee from using any information not generally known to the securities industry for the benefit of… Read More

Disagreeing with Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 308, this decision holds that Labor Code 218.5 and 1194 prescribe one-way fee and cost awards in employee suits for minimum wage and overtime pay, precluding the application of CCP 1032 and CCP 998, which only changes the normal prevailing party determination under CCP 1032.  An employer may recover… Read More

In this suit for unpaid wages, plaintiff successfully opposed defendant's motion to transfer the case to the court's limited jurisdiction division, but then failed to recover damages exceeding the limited jurisdiction's maximum.  CCP 1033 provides that when this occurs,, the court may deny the plaintiff costs, including attorney fees. Without deciding whether the fee-shifting provisions of various Labor Code sections… Read More

1 2 3 21