By Calvin House | Published December 11, 2017 | Posted in Uncategorized |
Search Site
Author Archive
Calvin House
On Call
Is an employee who is sitting around waiting to be called into work, “working”? A recent decision by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge prompts us to examine the applicable principles. In a scenario that has been common in retail and food service establishments, an employer tells its employees that fluctuating demands make it necessary Read More
Read MoreNew NLRB General Counsel Signals Enforcement Changes
The United States Senate confirmed Peter Robb as the new General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board on November 8, 2017. On December 1, 2017, Mr. Robb issued a memorandum to the NLRB regional offices that required those contemplating enforcement actions to seek advice before proceeding. The categories for which advice must be sought are (1) cases over Read More
Read MoreCalifornia Supreme Court Rejects Unconscionability Attack on Arbitration Agreement
In the latest of a series of decisions dealing with the enforceability of arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to invalidate an agreement based on its provision for applications to a court for preliminary injunctive relief while the arbitration is pending. The provision simply reiterated a right that is conferred by Read More
Read MoreTipping and the Wage and Hour Rules
Both federal law and California law impose rules on employers about how to treat tips that their employees receive. It is important for employers in California to understand both sets of rules. Federal Fair Labor Standards Act The FLSA addresses tips in 29 U.S.C. section 203(m), which provides that an employer may add “an additional amount Read More
Read MoreDOL Gives Continued Attention To Joint Employment
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Labor has paid particular attention to misclassification of employees as independent contractors. It has worked with other federal and state agencies to help misclassified employees get the wages, benefits, and protections to which they are entitled. On January 20, 2016, the Administrator of the Department’s Wage and Hour Division issued Read More
Read MoreCalifornia’s New Equal Pay Act
Although there has been a California equal pay act since 1949, and a federal one since 1963, and although both California and federal law have barred discrimination in employment based on gender for over 50 years, recent attention to the continuing wage gap between men and women and the publicity brought to the subject by Patricia Arquette’s acceptance speech at the 2015 Academy Awards has led to Read More
Read MoreAirlines Targeted For Unpaid Work Before Takeoff
Virgin America and Jet Blue are defendants in separate lawsuits alleging that they do not pay their flight attendants for all the hours that they work. According to the complaints, the airlines, require the flight attendants to put in time on the ground getting ready for their flights, but do not start paying them until Read More
Read MorePersonality Testing
Time Magazine has a cover story this week entitled “How High Is Your XQ?” which describes the current interest among employers in the use of personality tests to make hiring, promotion and termination decisions. The answers to test questions are supposed to reveal personalty traits that are correlated with success on the job. You may hear Read More
Read MoreFederal Appellate Court Rejects DOL Six-Factor Intern Test
In September 2013, two interns who had worked without pay on Fox Seachlight‘s Black Swan movie convinced a United States District Judge that they were actually employees and should have been paid. That judge based his ruling on a six-factor test that the U.S. Department of Labor derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. Read More
Read MoreSupreme Court rules on Abercrombie’s refusal to hire woman who wore headscarf
In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. 14-86 (June 1, 2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Abercrombie was not entitled to summary judgment on a disparate treatment claim by a Muslim woman who was not hired because the headscarf she wore pursuant her religious obligations conflicted with the employer’s dress code. The decision Read More
Read More