By Calvin House | Published June 25, 2014 | Posted in Uncategorized |
Search Site
Author Archive
Calvin House
Working Out May Be Work
Whether an employee is acting within the course of employment determines whether the employer is responsible for the employee’s acts and omissions. Under Labor Code section 3600 the course of employment for workers compensation purposes does not extend to “voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties, Read More
Read MoreWorkplace Surveillance and Investigations
Two articles in The New York Times today prompt consideration of the appropriate place for surveillance in the workplace. See “Unblinking Eyes Track Employees” and “American Apparel Ousts Its Founder, Dov Charney, Over Nude Photos“. Employers must strike the proper balance between an employee’s privacy interest and the employer’s interest in monitoring activity in the workplace. As Read More
Read MoreAre truckers independent contractors?
Trucking companies have become the targets of lawsuits alleging that they misclassified their drivers as independent contractors. Such cases include Robles v. Comtrak Logistics, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-00161 (putative class action currently pending in the federal court in Sacramento) and Seacon Logix Inc. v. Labor Commissioner (Seacon ordered to pay $105,000 for violations against four of its drivers). Read More
Read MoreU.S. Supreme Court adopts “but for” test for Title VII retaliation claims
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Case No. 12-484 (Jun. 24, 2013), the U. S. Supreme Court has directed courts to apply the “but for” test to retaliation claims brought under Title VII. This differs from the standard for assessing status-based discrimination claims that Congress enacted into 42 U.S.C. section §2000e–2(m). That section Read More
Read More“Suitable Seats” Class Action by Cashiers
The California wage orders (available here) provide: “(A) All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats. (B)When employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall Read More
Read MoreArbitration Agreement May Not Preclude PAGA Representative Actions
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code sections 2698 – 2699.5) (PAGA) allows a aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties for violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of himself or herself and other employees. 75 percent of the amount recovered goes to the State and the balance to the Read More
Read MoreCan an employee do exempt and nonexempt work at the same time?
“Not in California” was the answer that Safeway recently received from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. Heyen v. Safeway Inc., Case No. B237418 (May 23, 2013). Linda Heyen was responsible for all store operations at Safeway’s Oceanside store, but, she also had to do bookkeeping and other nonexempt work. She was able Read More
Read MoreRest periods must be separately compensated
Safeway paid its truck drivers on what it called a piece rate basis. Pay was based on (1) mileage rates that varied by number of miles driven, time of day, and location, (2) fixed rates for certain tasks, (3) an hourly rate for a predetermined amount of minutes for other tasks, and (4) an hourly Read More
Read MoreAre Per Diem Payments Part of Payroll?
If a payment to an employee is reimbursement for expenses the employee incurred on behalf of the employer it is not wages, and not taxable. Because it can be burdensome to track and reimburse small expenses exactly, many employers pay employees a flat per diem amount to be used for expenses. If the per diem Read More
Read MoreRounding Permissible Under California Wage and Hour Law
A January 2012 post described a case pending in the California Court of Appeal that involved the legality of rounding time worked to the nearest tenth of an hour for purposes of computing wages. In See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. D060710 (Oct. 29, 2012), the San Diego division of the Fourth District Court of Read More
Read More