Search Site
Menu
Recent Blog Posts
1 - 10 of 167
Page 1 of 17

Former Women’s Team Goalkeeper Sues US Soccer for Equal Pay Act Violation

Hope Solo, who was a goalkeeper for the US Women’s National Team from 2000 to 2016, has sued the United States Soccer Federation, the official governing body for the sport of soccer in the United States. Her complaint, filed on August 24, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, charges that U.S. Soccer violated Read More

Read More

How an $80 Mistake Became an $88,410 Mistake

California’s Labor Code is full of technical requirements that can trip up even those employers who are trying to comply with their obligations. And, because of the monetary penalties and attorney’s fees that can be assessed for violations of those technical requirements, the consequences may be out of proportion to the seriousness of the wrongdoing. Read More

Read More

Federal “De Minimis” Doctrine Does Not Apply to Wage Claims under California Law

In Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that insubstantial and insignificant amounts of time spent on preliminary work activities could be ignored in calculating whether an employee had worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The U.S. Department of Labor adopted a regulation codifying this “de Read More

Read More

Federal Court Enjoins Portions of AB 450

AB 450 was part of the “Sanctuary State”measures signed into law by Governor Brown on October 5, 2017. (The other measures were SB 54, restricting the sharing of information by law enforcement agencies, and AB 103, dealing with oversight of detention facilities). AB 450 imposed four restrictions on employers. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, employers: Were prohibited from Read More

Read More

The ABC’s of Employment

The California Supreme Court has handed down an important decision that explains how to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor, for purposes of enforcing California’s wage orders. In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (Apr. 30, 2018), the Court adopted the “ABC” test. That test assumes an individual who does Read More

Read More

Discouraging Employee Departures

Because employers invest money in hiring, training and developing their employees, they would like their employees to remain in their employ. You know how it goes. You spend time and money on recruiting the best candidates. Then, you teach the ones you hire how to do their jobs. Just as the best one of the Read More

Read More

Joint Employer Responsibility for Meal Periods

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal explains how a staffing agency may satisfy its obligation to its employees to provide meal periods in accordance with the California wage orders. See Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc., Case No. A149187 (1st Dist. Ct. App. 3/9/2018). Aerotek was a staffing agency that placed temporary employees with its Read More

Read More

DOL Abandons 6-Factor Internship Test

The U.S. Department of Labor has updated its fact sheet on internship programs to adopt the “primary beneficiary” test followed by the Second, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals. It previously used a six-factor text that refused to allow unpaid internships under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the employer derived any immediate advantage from Read More

Read More

Wellness Programs May Have to Adjust

A federal district court decision may bring changes to employer wellness programs. Current federal regulations allow employers to offer an incentive of up to 30 percent off the employee portion of group health program premiums to employees who participate in a wellness program. See the EEOC rule and the joint rule promulgated by the IRS, the Employee Benefits Security Read More

Read More

Joint Employment Revisited

A new California statute that imposes liability on general contractors for unpaid wages of their sub-contractors employees prompts us to revisit the principles of joint employment. For previous posts on the topic, click here. The new statute, AB 1701, provides that, for contracts entered into after January 1, 2018, a “direct” contractor (as defined in Civil Code section 8018) Read More

Read More
1 - 10 of 167
Page 1 of 17