We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court, 75 Cal. App. 5th 844 (2022)

California resident Michael Jed Sewell worked as a sales representative and sales manager for LGCY Power, which is headquartered in Salt Lake County, Utah. In 2015, Sewell signed a “Solar Representative Agreement,” which included noncompetition, nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions as well as Utah choice of law and forum provisions. In 2019, Sewell

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2019 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Stratton v. Beck, 30 Cal. App. 5th 901 (2018)

Anthony Stratton filed a claim against Thomas Beck with the labor commissioner for unpaid wages in the amount of $303.55. After conducting an administrative hearing, the labor commissioner awarded Stratton $303.50 plus an additional $5,757.46 in liquidated damages, interest and statutory penalties for a total award of $6,060.96. Beck then filed an appeal in

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a statewide salary history inquiry law that will largely restrict employers in the state from seeking and relying upon salary history information from applicants during the hiring process.

The law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2018 and will apply to all private and public sector employers, will prohibit employers from:

  • relying on salary history

Eicher v. Advanced Bus. Integrators, Inc., 2007 WL 1678244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)

ABI sells computer software that is used in sports and entertainment venues to schedule staff, manage payroll, credentialing and security and to keep track of costs. ABI employed Michael Eicher to provide on-site customer service and training on the ABI software. ABI considered Eicher to be a consultant and paid him

Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 2007 WL 1760747 (9th Cir. 2007)

The employees in this class action case were required to report to a designated site before being transported in company vans or pickup trucks to their jobsites. The employees were told that the reason for this arrangement was that there was a “shortage of parking spaces at the jobsites.” The combined meeting and

Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd., 148 Cal. App. 4th 604 (2007)

Plaintiffs were employed by Van Elk on allegedly public works projects that were subject to California’s prevailing wage law. Van Elk filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they were undocumented workers. Plaintiffs’ discovery responses affirmed that they were not born in

Smith v. Superior Court (L’Oréal USA, Inc.), 39 Cal. 4th 77 (2006)

Aspiring actress and model, Amanza Smith, worked as a “hair model” for L’Oréal at Christophe hair salon for which she was paid $500 for one day’s work. L’Oréal considered Smith to be an independent contractor and took more than two months to pay her the compensation it owed to her. Smith filed

Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 314, 2005 WL 3549422 (Dec. 29, 2005)

Osmose, Inc., which is in the business of maintaining standing wood utility poles for major utility companies, employed union members as employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. In this class action, the employees alleged they were not compensated for various tasks, including travel time in company vehicles, preparing