Li v. Department of Indust. Relations, 2020 WL 4814112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
Fushan Li, the owner of four massage parlors in Lawndale, received three citations from the Labor Commissioner for violations of the state’s wage and hour laws. Citations ordering Li to pay a total of $198,576 in unpaid wages and liquidated damages were issued in 2017. After filing a petition for writ of
On Thursday, October 5th, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law nearly a dozen new immigration-related bills, including AB 450, which prohibits employers from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the absence of a judicial warrant or court order. Among other things, the new law:
Jury panels in the Los Angeles Superior Court (which is often referred to as “The Bank” by the plaintiffs’ bar) have recently delivered multimillion-dollar verdicts to former-employee plaintiffs. Many employers doing business in California already have insulated themselves from such disasters by adopting comprehensive arbitration regimes, which would require that such cases be heard by a retired judge or employment lawyer rather than a jury
McLean v. State of Cal., 2016 WL 4395672 (Cal. S. Ct. 2016)
Janis McLean, a retired deputy attorney general, filed suit against the State of California on behalf of herself and a class of former state employees who, having resigned or retired, did not receive their final wages within the time period set forth in Cal. Labor Code § 202 (72 hours). McLean alleged
California Governor Jerry Brown has until September 30th to sign or veto A.B. 1522, a recently passed bill that would require businesses employing at least one person in California to provide employees with paid sick leave and to comply with new recordkeeping and informational requirements. If signed by the governor, the bill will become effective on July 1, 2015.
Most employees would accrue one hour
Last week, we reported that the California Labor Commissioner issued a template “Notice to Employee” as required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which went into effect January 1. The Act requires employers to furnish specified wage information to certain non-exempt employees at the time of their hire.
As we also pointed out, the Commissioner’s “Frequently Asked Questions,” published December 30, 2011, stated that the Notice (or the information contained therein) must be given to all current employees, despite the fact that the statute calls only for employers to provide such data to employees “at the time of hiring.” We placed a call to the DLSE shortly after the FAQs were issued, and the agency responded yesterday by updating its Web site. The FAQs, which can be found here, now reflect that the information required under new Labor Code § 2810.5 need only be provided at the time of hiring and within 7 days of a change in such information, if the change is not listed on the employee’s pay stub for the following pay period.
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a number of bills addressing a wide array of issues that could significantly impact employers in the coming year. Read on for an overview of some of these new laws and their key provisions.
Today, in a decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case involving an employee’s assertion that a government employer had violated the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably obtaining and reviewing personal text messages sent and received on employer-issued pagers. Justices Stevens and Scalia issued concurring opinions.
City of Ontario v. Quon (08-1332)
A recent decision by the California Supreme Court could have resounding implications for the enforceability of arbitration awards – a matter of great concern in employment law given the prevalence of arbitration agreements governing employment relationships – and opens the door for employees to petition the courts to compel arbitrators to decide the merits of their statutory claims.
As we reported previously, in December 2007 the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision relating to company e-mail policies in The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (2007), holding that an employer (i) may restrict the use of its computer systems to business related uses only, and (ii) could distinguish between personal and organizational solicitation in enforcing its no-solicitation policy.
Earlier this week, in The Register-Guard v. NLRB, No. 07-1528 (D.C. Cir July 7, 2009), the D.C. Circuit issued its decision reversing, in part, the Board’s decision.
Neither party requested review of (and, thus, the court did not address) the Board’s general holding that allowed restricting the use of company e-mail to business purposes. The Court also chose not to address the Board’s position on distinguishing between the types of solicitation. Instead, it held that based on the facts of this particular case — where the policy in question did not actually make a distinction between types of solicitation — the employer could not discipline an employee for a union-related solicitation. As discussed below, the decision highlights the risks to employers who act based on the current Board law in the absence of a clear written policy that makes an explicit distinction between types of solicitation. Moreover, even if employers have such a policy now, the future Obama Board is likely to modify the current law.