In 2018, the California electorate adopted Prop. 11 which enact Lab. Code 880 et seq., providing that ambulance employees must remain reachable by a communications device during their work shifts, including rest breaks. Lab. Code 889 expressly made the new law applicable to any and all actions pending on, or commenced after October 25, 2017. This decision holds that the… Read More
Substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the husband and wife who owned and managed the defendant corporation were alter egos of the corporation and liable for the corporation's Labor Code violations in a suit brought by a former employee. The evidence showed that the corporation had paid some of the couple's personal debts and that the couple had… Read More
Following Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 731 and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, this decision holds that California's wage and hour laws apply to seamen working on a ship that sailed between California ports and oil drilling platforms outside California's jurisdictional limits. The seamen performed most of their work in California--though the… Read More
Disagreeing with Batze v. Safeway, Inc. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 440, this decision holds that Amrican Pipe tolling applies to this later-brought individual suit on the same Labor Code violations alleged in two prior putative class actions, both alleging that Staples misclassified its store managers as exempt employees even though they spent more than 50% of their work time performing functions… Read More
To obtain review of an OSHA Appeals Bd. decision, the aggrieved party must petition the Appeals Bd. for reconsideration of the underlying decision (whether of an ALJ or the Appeals Bd.), but this decision holds, there can be no second petition for reconsideration unless (a) on the first reconsideration the Appeals Bd. reverses the underlying decision, thus creating a new… Read More
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
Under Lab. Code 515(a) and Wage Order No. 44 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040), an employer need not pay overtime pay to an employee who (1) is primarily engaged in exempt duties and (2) earns “a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment." This decision holds that "salary"… Read More
In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, the Supreme Court held that in the employment context, Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 is to be strictly enforced, prohibiting enforcement of any noncompetition clause except in circumstances that are exempted by B & P Code 16601, 16602 or 16602.5. However, this case holds that outside the employment context, and… Read More
Under Labor Code 92(f), a forum selection clause in an employment contract is invalid and unenforceable if the contract was "“entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017." This decision holds that any modification of the employment contract after January 1, 2017 triggers the application of section 925, even if the modification did not affect the forum… Read More
Wastewater collection workers employed by the city to clean its sewers were not transportation workers governed by IWC Wage Order No. 7 even though their work required them to drive commercial vehicles to clean and pump out sewers and transport refuse to collection locations. So sanitation workers are not entitled to the meal and rest breaks mandated by Wage Order… Read More
When an employer’s no-fault absenteeism policy provides that an employee may clear absences that otherwise would count for purposes of disciplinary action by working (or being available to work) during a certain clearance period, the employer does not violate the California Family Rights Act (Gov. Code 12945.2) by extending the absence clearance period by the number of days the employee… Read More
