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.

This decision holds that the US Supreme Court's later decision in Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters (2010) 561 U.S. 287, which expressly rejected the notion that labor arbitration disputes should be analyzed differently than commercial arbitration disputes undermined the reasoning of both Pacesetter Construction Co. v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Bd. (9th Cir. 1997) 116… Read More

When employees are compensated on a piece work basis, they must be separately compensated at either the minimum wage or higher contractual wage rate for the rest breaks to which they are legally entitled.  If the employees are allowed to take the rest breaks, but are not separately compensated for them, they can choose either, but not both, of the… Read More

Under Lab. Code 3366 civilian who assists any peace officer in active law enforcement service at the request of the peace officer's request is deemed to be a public employee as a matter of law and is entitled to workers compensation for any injury sustained while providing that assistance.  However, since workers compensation is available, the person assisting the police… Read More

CCSF wrongly terminated Morgado's employment as a police officer.  While he was no longer working for CCSF, Morgado was engaged as a broker, earning $181,000 in gross income.  This decision holds that Morgado's earnings as a broker must be offset agaisnt the damages he is awarded against CCSF whether for front or back pay.  Morgado is entitled only to be… Read More

Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer.  Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds.  The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement.  Held:  The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene.  The motion was… Read More

Joining the 1st Circuit, this decision holds that a worker can be "engaged in interstate commerce" and thus exempt from the FAA even though the worker, himself, does not cross state lines--so long as he is part of a distribution chain that extends across state lines.  Thus, Amazon's "last-mile" delivery drivers were exempt from the FAA.  Though they didn't cross… Read More

This decision affirms an order denying an employer's motion to compel arbitration.  Though it found only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability in that the arbitration agreement was an adhesion contract, it holds that there was a high degree of unconscionability inherent in the arbitration agreement's (a) too restrictive limitation of discovery and (b) non-mutuality.  Discovery was limited to two… Read More

A doctor who was joined a hosptial's staff and was given clinical privileges and performed surgery at the hospital was an independent contractor, not an employee and so could not state a Title VII claim for discrimination in employment against the hospital.  He was on call with the hospital only 5 days a month, and his earnings from the hospital… Read More

Citing Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, this decision holds that the settlement and judgment in a prior class action and PAGA suit against the employer alleging the same meal and rest break violations is res judicata of plaintiff's similar PAGA claims.  Even though plaintiff opted out of the class action portion of the earlier case, he could… Read More

1 2 3 19