Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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.

Employee raised genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on gender discrimination claim, after she introduced evidence of disparate treatment of male colleagues and of her immediate supervisor's discriminatory remarks about having a woman in plaintiff's position.  Read More

Employee raised genuine issues of material fact as to racial discrimination and retaliation after he introduced evidence that his supervisor demeaned him with belittling, racist remarks and that he was fired after he complained about it.  Read More

Triable issues of fact existed as to whether defendant employer had terminated plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for exercising her rights under California’s Family and Medical Leave Act.  Read More

A car dealer’s service advisors who do not sell or service cars do not fall within the exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements for a "salesman, partsman or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles."  Read More

Employer did not violate California’s minimum wage laws by its policies of rounding employees’ work clock times to the nearest tenth of an hour or by allowing employees up to ten minutes uncompensated time before and after shifts in which to clock in or out.  Read More

The trial court correctly denied an employer's motion to compel arbitration of an employee's complaint under the Private Attorney General Act, since an individual employee's PAGA claim is not severable from the claim on behalf of the general public.  Read More

Since an employer may not legally require an employee to be on-duty or on-call during a rest break, defendant could not require its security guards to keep their radios on during their rest breaks and respond to an emergency call if one occurred during the rest break.  Read More

The Legislature violated two employers’ right to equal protection by carving them out of an exemption it granted all other employers from retroactive liability for certain minimum wage violations; avoiding the United Farmworkers Union’s opposition to the legislation was not a rational basis for treating the two employers differently.  Read More

In this meal and rest break action against a guard service company, the trial court erred in decertifying the class for lack of common questions of fact, because the fact that some employees may have been given adequate off-duty meal breaks went only to damages and thus did not undermine the predominance of common issues.  Read More

Special conditions in the concrete industry justified various alternative meal break arrangements for concrete truck drivers, since concrete can harden during a meal break if a truck is left unattended.  Read More

Former city parks employee claimed he was fired for opposing discriminatory practices against disabled citizens who used the parks, but he could not state a cause of action based on the California Fair Housing & Employment Act since that statute does not protect employees against retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices against non-employee customers or clients. Read More

Triable issues of fact existed on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim after she was fired for tardiness due to recurrent doctor appointments and medical problems which resulted from what turned out to be a benign tumor.  Read More

Despite denial of an attorney at initial investigation interview for excessive force complaint, police officer could not state a claim based on the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act since he retained his prior employment at his same salary and thus suffered no adverse employment action.  Read More

A plaintiff cannot state claims against a payroll processor for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or Labor Code sections requiring payment of minimum wages since the payroll processor is not actually the plaintiff's employer.  Read More

In employee’s lawsuit against union alleging breach of duty of fair representation, district court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of union, when the evidence showed that the union failed to pursue Rollins' special rights under a seniority agreement and the evidence conflicted as to whether its stated reasons for doing so were actually reasonable.  Read More

The Department of Industrial Relations may penalize any employer who lacks worker’s compensation coverage for more than one week during the calendar year preceding the determination, and Labor Code 3722(b)’s reference to “calendar year” is interpreted to mean the 12 months immediately preceding the determination of lack of insurance rather than a Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 calendar year.  Read More

Communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel are subject to the attorney-client privilege insofar as the communications pertain to the decision whether the Board should file a complaint seeking injunctive relief in court.  Read More

Counsel for the plaintiff class in one wage-and-hour suit against Apple is too conflicted to act as counsel for the plaintiff class in a separate wage-and-hour case against the same company, since members of the first class would likely be defense witnesses in the second class.  Read More

Labor Code 226 does not require an employer to list on an employee's ordinary pay stubs the amount of vacation benefits earned but not paid during the pay period.  Read More

The National Labor Relations Act did not preempt a manager’s state law wrongful termination claims, as his termination did not arguably interfere with employees’ right to organize—they had already voted to join a union when the manager was fired for goading them into unionizing.  Read More

1 20 21 22 23 24