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.

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

Defendant, a vision insurance provider, terminated plaintiff, an optometrist, for using unapproved lens suppliers for defendant's patients.  Defendant's network doctor agreement provided for a two-step review process of disputes, including those over termination under these circumstances.  The first step was review by a three-member panel, the second step was arbitration.  This decision holds that this two-step process does not violate… Read More

Lab. Code 432.7 prohibits an employer from asking a job applicant to disclose any conviction that has been judicially dismissed and bars an employer from using any record of a dismissed conviction as a factor in the termination of employment.  Here, Premier hired plaintiff but several weeks later received a mistaken notice from the DMV saying that plaintiff had an… Read More

The NLRA did not preempt plaintiff employees' claims that Google's (and its emplyment agency's) policies forbidding employees from disclosing their wages and working conditions to others violated various Labor Code sections giving rise to plaintiff's PAGA suit.  The NLRA did not arguably protect or prohibit the nondisclosure policies insofar as they blocked disclosure to persons other than co-workers.  Moreover, California's… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 22