Authored by
Seyfarth Synopsis: In what many employers will see as a “break” from workplace reality, the Supreme Court, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., announced that certain “on call” rest periods do not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders. As previously reported on our California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog,
Continue Reading No Break for California Employers This Holiday Season
Authored by Simon L. Yang
Seyfarth Synopsis: When the California Supreme Court said no to PAGA waivers in its 2014 Iskanian ruling, we asked whether employers would boldly go where few have gone before and implement arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of PAGA claims. A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. U-Haul Company of California warrants revisiting
Continue Reading Agree to Arbitrate Representative Issues Much?
Authored by Christopher A. Crosman
We are excited to announce the 16th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions. As in previous editions, this publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class and representative claims and the development of the law over the last several years,
Continue Reading The 16th Edition of Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions Is Here!
Co-authored by Monica Rodriguez and Justin Curley
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court holds that employers must promptly pay final wages owed to employees who quit, including those who retire, or risk paying steep statutory penalties under California Labor Code section 203.
What Were the Plaintiff’s Claims?
Janis McLean worked as deputy attorney general for the California Department of
Continue Reading Prompt Payment Required – Doesn’t Matter If Fired, Retired, Or Resigned
Authored by Simon L. Yang
Seyfarth Synopsis: PAGA was amended earlier this week, in connection with the California legislature’s approval of the state’s annual budget. The legislation did not implement any of the more substantive changes that Governor Brown’s proposed budget had previously suggested—e.g., requiring PAGA plaintiffs to provide additional information when submitting pre-filing written notice to the LWDA or
Continue Reading PAGA Amendments Address Legislature’s Concerns, Not Employers’ Concerns
Authored by Simon L. Yang
When PAGA—California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004—was first enacted, we knew it would take years to see how it would be applied. Twelve years (and over $30 million in penalties paid to the state) later, we thought we’d have more answers. But many California employers, attorneys, and judges, now all too familiar
Continue Reading PAGA 101: Tired of Stupid Answers? Time to Ask the Stupid Questions
Co-authored by Hillary J. Massey and Kerry Friedrichs
The Ninth Circuit this week blessed an employer’s policy of rounding employee time punches to the nearest quarter hour, affirming summary judgment in favor of the company on an employee’s challenge to the rounding policy under the FLSA and the California Labor Code.
“This case turns on $15.02 and one minute.” From
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Roundly Supports Time Punch Rounding
Co-authored by Sherry Skibbe and Andrew Paley
Allstate Insurance Company “insured” a major victory last week in an off the clock class action pending in Los Angeles Superior Court, vindicating employers’ argument that plaintiffs cannot simply intone the magical incantation of “statistical sampling” as a means of collective proof in a class action. Rather, plaintiffs must proffer a detailed and
Continue Reading Court Insures Allstate Against Unsound Trial Plan Mayhem
Authored by Jeffrey A. Berman, Julie G. Yap, and Michael Afar
Last week, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on a California Wage Order requirement that employers provide “suitable seats” for employees when the “nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” The consolidated decision says employers have to provide seating where employee tasks
Continue Reading Better Sit Down for This… or Stand and Rejoice? California Supreme Court Clarifies “Suitable Seating” Rules
Authored by Michael Kopp
Piece-rate employers in California have faced a surge of class action lawsuits in recent years seeking substantial sums for the failure to separately pay for rest breaks and nonproductive time. On January 1, 2016, California Labor Code section 226.2 went into effect, requiring employers to separately compensate piece-rate employees for rest break and nonproductive time
Continue Reading Gimme Shelter: A Safe Harbor Deadline Looms for California Piece-Rate Employers