By Calvin House | Published March 18, 2012 | Posted in Uncategorized |
Search Site
Author Archive
Calvin House
Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention
A recent decision from the California Supreme Court has brought attention to the legal principles that impose liability on the employer for the misconduct of its employees. In C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., Case No. S188982 (Mar. 8, 2012), the Court ruled that a school district could be held liable in damages Read More
Read MoreVacation Pay
California employment law requires special treatment of vacation pay. Although employers are not required to offer vacation pay at all, if they do, they must adhere to certain rules. By operation of California Labor Code section 227.3, vacation pay is treated as part of an employee’s wages, which vests as it is earned. Because it vests, Read More
Read MoreEmployee Handbooks Take The Stress Out Of HR
Although they take a little bit of work, employee handbooks can make human resources management less stressful. Consider the before and after handbook answers to the following inquiries: 1. My grandmother died last night. I have to go to the funeral tomorrow evening in Florida. Before: Gee, that’s terrible. I don’t know if I can Read More
Read MoreAge Discrimination
Age discrimination is like other forms of discrimination, except when it is not. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination and harassment based on age against employers who are over 40. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) includes age over 40 among its protected characteristics. Until 1996, the ADEA allowed discrimination against those over 70. Read More
Read MoreRounding
Employers routinely round off the number of minutes worked to fit the needs of their payroll systems. Recently, class action lawyers who believe that the practice shortchanges employees have filed class actions challenging the practice. For example, a lawsuit under review in the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District challenges the use by Read More
Read MoreWhistleblower Lawsuits
Last week, an employee whistle blower complaint was filed against individuals and organizations associated with the Lap-Band weight-loss device. Deuel v. 1 800 Get Thin, LLC, Case No. BC477064 (Jan. 17, 2012). A copy of the complaint is available here. This prompts a reminder that whistle blower, or retaliation, lawsuits pose difficult problems for employers. There are two types of Read More
Read MoreAccommodating Mental Disabilities
A recent case from New York provides fodder for a discussion of the scope of an employer’s obligation to accommodate an employee’s mental disability. A law firm fired one of its attorneys after learning that he attempted to have charges for adult movies and calls to escort services to the firm’s clients. The attorney sued Read More
Read MoreInsurance Agent Is An Independent Contractor, Not An Employee
The enactment by the California legislature of new penalties for willful misclassification of independent contractors should have employers paying close attention to the applicable standards. (See Labor Code section 226.8.) A recent decision from the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco is instructive. Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., Case No. A131440 (Dec. 30, Read More
Read MoreCalifornia Supreme Court Punts On Clarifying Exemption Rules
The California Supreme Court has passed on an opportunity to provide California employers with clear guidelines for applying the exemptions from the state’s wage and hour rules. In Harris v. Superior Court, Case No. S156555 (Dec. 29, 2011), the Court chastised the Court of Appeal for applying an “administrative/production worker dichotomy” as a dispositive test for Read More
Read MoreReporting Time Pay and Split Shifts
A recent decision from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles discusses two requirements found in the the California wage orders — minimum pay for those who show up to work but are sent home early, and extra pay for those who work a split shift. Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular, Case No. B231142 (Dec. Read More
Read More