Scott v. Gino Morena Enterprises, LLC, 2018 WL 1977123 (9th Cir. 2018)
Taylor Scott sued GME in state court for sexual harassment and retaliation. Because Scott worked at a barbershop located on the United States Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, her state court action was removed to federal court under the federal enclave doctrine. After removal, GME filed a motion for judgment on
Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc., 21 Cal. App. 5th 773 (2018)
Norma Serrano brought this putative class action against her employer (Aerotek), which placed her as a temporary employee with its client (Bay Bread). Serrano alleged violations of the Labor Code and of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) based upon, among other things, Aerotek’s alleged failure to provide required meal periods. The
Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 2018 WL 1959472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Sadie Curry worked as a gas station manager at a station owned by Shell Oil, but operated by another company (ARS). Curry was hired, trained and supervised by ARS employees, and ARS alone determined that Curry was an exempt employee. In this putative class action, Curry alleged that she and the other
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018)
An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) exempts from its overtime requirements “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.” The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) subsequently issued an opinion letter and amended its Field Operations Handbook to state that service
Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2018 WL 2057468 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Marisa Hernandez worked on and off as an assistant for the District for a number of years without any complaints about her performance. Eight months into her 12-month probationary period (after which point she would become a “permanent employee”), Hernandez took a temporary disability leave of absence to have
Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018) (en banc)
Aileen Rizo, who is an employee of the public schools in Fresno County, sued for violation of the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) after she learned that her male counterparts were being paid more for performing the same work. In its summary judgment motion, the county argued that it paid
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2018 WL 1999120 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018)
Two delivery drivers for Dynamex filed this putative class action on behalf of similarly situated drivers, alleging that they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees for purposes of Industrial Wage Commission Order No. 9 (governing the transportation industry). At issue in the case is whether the relatively broad
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2018 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, making it even harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors (rather than employees). The previous standard used for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors had been in place since 1989 and was based upon a multifactor test that considered, among other
By Anthony J. Oncidi and Nayirie Kuyumjian
The California Chamber of Commerce has just identified a new raft of recently introduced “job killer” bills that have been proposed in the California Legislature.
This year’s list of 27 proposed laws includes measures that would impose additional penalties for an employer’s failure to pay wages; increase the personal income tax for the highest earners in California; ban