By Calvin House | Published December 31, 2019 | Posted in Dynamex, Independent Contractor, Uncategorized, Wage and Hour | Tagged Tags: AB 5, doordash, Dynamex, lyft, postmates, uber |
New Lawsuit Challenges AB 5
Attribution: Alpha Stock Images – https://alphastockimages.com/ Uber, Postmates, Uber driver Lydia Olson and Postmates courier Miguel Perez have filed a lawsuit seeking to have AB 5 declared unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Lydia Olson v. State of California, Case No. 2:19-cv-10956. (Read the complaint here.) Read More
Read MoreAnti-Arbitration Law On Hold
AB 51 purported to ban arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, by adding new section 432.6 to the Labor Code, effective January 1, 2020. On Monday, December 30, 2019, United States District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement, pending a hearing to Read More
Read MoreCalculating Regular Rate of Pay for a Salaried Nonexempt Employee
A paragraph from a recent article in the Los Angeles Times about the “Revenge of the showbiz assistants” prompts a few words of caution. The article quotes a spokeswoman for WME (a talent agency) as saying that “each assistant automatically has 10 hours of overtime allotted into their paycheck each week.” While the details of Read More
Read MoreUber, Lyft and Doordash Launch Attack on AB5
Image provided by www.quotecatalog.com Uber, Lyft and Doordash have launched a campaign to pass an initiative that would limit the impact of AB 5, a new California law that seeks to increase the number of workers entitled to protections for employees under California law. If passed by voters next year, the initiative would add new provisions Read More
Read MoreWatch Partner Calvin House Argue in the Ninth Circuit
We represent Los Angeles School Police Officer Daniel East in a lawsuit claiming that Officer East participated in the unlawful prosecution of a juvenile adjudicated a murder, whose conviction was overturned. Our appeal from the District Court’s refusal to grant summary judgment was heard by a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit on October 15, Read More
Read MoreCalifornia Again Tries to Restrict Employment Arbitration Clauses
Governor Newsom has signed AB51 into law. The new statute purports to prohibit employers from requiring applicants or employees to waive their rights bring lawsuits to vindicate their labor and employment claims. It adds new Labor Code section 432.6, which, effective January 1, 2020, will provide: (a) A person shall not, as a condition of employment, Read More
Read MoreNinth Circuit Rejects Attempt to Hold McDonald’s Liable as a Joint Employer
The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment that dismissed claims against McDonald’s Corp. in a class action alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs had claimed that McDonald’s was a joint employer with its franchisees. Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., Case No. 17-15673 (Oct. 1, 2019), the Court rejected three theories that Read More
Read MoreNew California Law Codifies ABC Test for Employment Relationship
Governor Newsom has signed AB 5, which was enacted to bring more California workers under the protection of laws that apply to employers. The bill adds section 2750.3 to the Labor Code, which will become effective on January 1, 2020. The bill’s findings state the Legislature’s intent to codify the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Read More
Read MoreHairstyle Protection Added to FEHA
A California law that will become effective on January 1, 2020, provides protection for hairstyles and other traits that are associated with race. SB 188 does so by amending the definition of “race” in the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and Read More
Read MoreClaim for Damages Required for 1102.5 Claim
The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that plaintiffs who wish to pursue whistle blower claims against public entities under Labor Code section 1102.5 must first file claims for damages under Government Code section 911.2. Le Mere v. Los Angeles School District, Case No. B281843 (Apr. 30, 2019). Section 1102.5 authorizes a damages lawsuit Read More
Read More