Last summer, we reported here the California Supreme Court ruling that premium payments owed under Labor Code section 226.7 for meal and rest break violations constitute “wages.” The Naranjo et al. v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93, 102 (2022) decision had significant ramifications because it triggered related obligations for employers to report the premiums on employee wage statements, pay employees these
November 2022 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Equal Pay Act Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed
- Whistleblower Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed In Part
- School District Employee May Have Been Discriminated Against On The Basis Of A Disability
- Offer To
Former Employee Was Not Injured By Alleged Violation Of FCRA
Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., 2022 WL 14391789 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
Plaintiff Ernesto Limon was employed by Circle K (which operates gas stations and convenience stores in California) for just one month before filing this putative class action lawsuit against his former employer, alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Limon alleged that Circle K’s standard form in which it
California Court of Appeal Dismantles Rounding Where Accurate Timekeeping Records Exist
A decade ago, a California Court of Appeal held that employers lawfully could round employees’ time punches if the rounding policy was neutral on its face and as applied. See See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012). In arriving at this conclusion, the See’s Court relied on regulations under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the
July 2022 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted To Employer In Whistleblower Case
- Job Applicants Need Not Be Paid For Time/Expenses Associated With Drug Testing
- Employer May Have Willfully Violated FCRA By Not Providing Employees Proper Background
Employer May Have Willfully Violated FCRA By Not Providing Employees Proper Background Check Notice
Hebert v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2022)
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requires an employer to provide a job applicant with a standalone disclosure stating that the employer may obtain the applicant’s consumer report when making a hiring decision. In this putative class action, Vicki Hebert alleged that Barnes & Noble willfully violated the FCRA by providing
Job Applicants Need Not Be Paid For Time/Expenses Associated With Drug Testing
Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, 2022 WL 2112792 (9th Cir. 2022)
Alfred Johnson brought this class action against WinCo, seeking compensation as an “employee” for the time and expense of taking a drug test as a successful applicant for employment. Plaintiffs argued that because the drug tests were administered under the control of the employer, they qualified as “employees” under California law. The district
Employer Need Not Reimburse Travel Expenses for Drug Test
A federal appeals court recently affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of WinCo Foods in a class action alleging that WinCo should have reimbursed successful job applicants for the time and travel expenses they incurred in obtaining a drug test as a pre-condition of employment. In Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, the court agreed with a lower court that WinCo was not obligated
May 2022 California Employment Law Notes
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:
- Former UCLA Physician Can Proceed With Whistleblower Claims
- Former Employee Adequately Alleged Disability Under The ADA
- California Resident May Rely Upon Labor Code § 925 To Challenge Non-Compete
- School District Is Not Liable For
Court Improperly Remanded Action To State Court Based On Amount In Controversy Under CAFA
Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989 (9th Cir. 2022)
Griselda Jauregui filed this putative class action in California state court against Roadrunner Transportation Services on behalf of all current and former hourly workers in California. The complaint alleged numerous violations of California wage and hour law. Roadrunner removed the case to federal court, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Plaintiff