California Employment Law Update

Category Archives: Employee Benefits

Subscribe to Employee Benefits RSS Feed

May 2023 California Employment Law Notes

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Age discrimination, California Labor & Employment Law, Computer and Internet Use, Day Laborers, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employment Contracts, Employment Law Notes, Employment Policies, Independent Contractors, Privacy, Religion
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: Art Teacher’s Age Discrimination Case May Not Be Barred By “Ministerial Exception” Users May Have Privacy Interest In Emails Sent Over Company Network Absent Express … Continue Reading

Unions, Legislature Dealt Yet Another Blow in AB 5 Appeal

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, Day Laborers, Employee Benefits, Employment Contracts, Employment Policies, Independent Contractors
Olson v. State of Cal., 62 F.4th 1206 (9th Cir. 2023) In the latest in a string of defeats for the State of California, a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously held that AB 5 (the anti-independent contractor law) may violate the equal protection rights of independent contractor drivers and the gig companies that retain them.  The … Continue Reading

California Employment Laws Passed and Pending

By Tony Oncidi and Sehreen Ladak on Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, CFRA, Collective Bargaining, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, FEHA, Hiring, Leaves of Absence, New and Proposed Laws and Legislation, Paid Sick Leave
It just wouldn’t be Fall without the passage of a flurry of new laws, shaking up the employment landscape in California.  As of the close of the legislative session on August 31, several “job killer” bills (so called by the California Chamber of Commerce as reported here and here) passed the state legislature and are … Continue Reading

California Employers May Be Required to Subsidize Backup Childcare

By Tony Oncidi, Kate Gold and Michelle Lappen on Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, Employee Benefits, New and Proposed Laws and Legislation
Last Thursday, Assembly Bill 1179 was introduced to require California employers with 1,000 or more to provide “backup ” for children under 14. To be eligible for the benefit, employees who work in California would need to have been employed by the company for at least 30 days. If passed and signed into law, this … Continue Reading

May 2019 California Employment Law Notes

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in ADA, California Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, FEHA, Independent Contractors, Title VII, Wrongful Termination
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2019 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: Strict Independent Contractor Test Applies Retroactively; California Employee Is Compelled To Litigate His Employment Claims In Indiana; Employee Could Rely Upon Former Supervisor’s Statement About Existence Of Discrimination; … Continue Reading

IT Analyst Was Properly Denied Unemployment Benefits

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, Disability, Employee Benefits
Goldstein v. CUIAB, 2019 WL 1923530 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) Steven M. Goldstein applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits from March 23, 2013 through August 10, 2013 after which time he ceased receiving unemployment benefits because he began receiving disability benefits, which continued until September 2014. Goldstein’s second claim for unemployment insurance benefits had … Continue Reading

California Would Recognize “International Workers’ Day” as a New Holiday

By Tony Oncidi and Travis Hall on Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes, New and Proposed Laws and Legislation
California Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) has introduced legislation (Assembly Bill 3042) that would recognize “International Workers’ Day” as a public holiday for students and school employees in the state.  The bill would authorize school districts and charter schools to designate May 1 as “International Workers’ Day” with schools to be closed – and … Continue Reading

Employer Properly Challenged CUIAB’s Determination That Worker Was Not An Independent Contractor

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits
West Hollywood Cmty. Health & Fitness Ctr. v. CUIAB, 2014 WL 6852700 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) After leaving his job as a massage therapist at West Hollywood Community Health & Fitness Center (d/b/a “Voda Spa”), Mario Serban applied for unemployment benefits. The Employment Development Department sent Voda Spa a letter indicating that Serban had been … Continue Reading

Update: California Employees Entitled to Paid Sick Leave Starting July 2015

By Jose (Joe) Perez on Posted in Disability, Employee Benefits, Employment Policies, New and Proposed Laws and Legislation, News
On September 10th, California became the second state in the country to require businesses to provide employees with paid sick leave, following Governor Jerry Brown’s signing of A.B. 1522, which goes into effect on July 1, 2015, and will be known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.   Click here to read … Continue Reading

California Employees May Soon Be Entitled to Paid Sick Leave

By Jose (Joe) Perez on Posted in Client Alerts, Employee Benefits, Employment Policies, Leaves of Absence, Payroll, Wage and Hour
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 … Continue Reading

Employee’s Refusal To Sign Disciplinary Notice Did Not Disqualify Him From Unemployment Benefits

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Union Issues
Paratransit, Inc. v. CUIAB, 2014 WL 2988013 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014) Craig Medeiros worked as a vehicle operator for Paratransit for six years. Medeiros was a member of a union, and the union and the employer were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. Paratransit investigated a complaint filed by a passenger, alleging that Medeiros had … Continue Reading

Employer Is Permitted To Deny Employees Vacation Benefits That Had Not Yet Vested

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes, Vacation or PTO
Owen v. Macy’s, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 462 (2009)  Lisa Owen worked as a sales associate at Robinsons-May until it was acquired by Macy’s in August 2005. In January 2006, employees at the Arcadia store where Owen worked were informed that the store would close by April. After the store closed on March 18, … Continue Reading

Don’t Terminate That 401(k) or 403(b) Safe Harbor Plan Just Yet: IRS Proposes New Rules Allowing Employers Experiencing Substantial Business Hardship To Reduce Non-elective Contributions Mid-Year

By Proskauer Employment Law Group on Posted in Client Alerts, Employee Benefits, Pensions
Introduction On May 18, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) issued new proposed regulations that allow plan sponsors of Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 401(k) or 403(b) safe harbor plans to reduce or suspend non-elective contributions mid-year if they are experiencing a “substantial business hardship.” Prior to the proposed regulations, a plan sponsor could … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Rejects Retroactive Application of Pregnancy Discrimination Act

By Proskauer Employment Law Group on Posted in Client Alerts, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Leaves of Absence, PDA, Pensions, Supreme Court
In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court has held that AT&T did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) when it based its calculation of employees’ pensions in part on a pre- PDA accrual rule that treated pregnancy leave less favorably than other forms of disability leave. AT&T Corp v. Hulteen, No. 07-543 (May … Continue Reading

Forfeiture Provision In Incentive Compensation Plan Does Not Violate California Labor Code

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes, Wage and Hour
Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 10 (2008) During his employment, David B. Schachter, a former securities salesperson for Salomon Smith Barney, participated in Smith Barney’s voluntary Capital Accumulation Plan, which allowed him to direct Smith Barney to pay him five percent of his total compensation in the form of restricted stock; the … Continue Reading

Employee Who Suffered “Psychiatric Injury” Due To Fluctuations In Company’s Stock Was Not Entitled To Benefits

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Disability, Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes, Workers Compensation
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. WCAB, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1174 (2004) Clifford Bryan filed a workers’ compensation claim against Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) after he was forced to leave work in October 2001 due to the stress of his job in interacting with customers who did not like the company and … Continue Reading

Disability Plan Administrator Was Not Required To Defer To Treating Physician’s Opinion

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Disability, Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes, ERISA
Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822 (2003) Kenneth L. Nord was employed by a Black & Decker subsidiary as a material planner in a job classified as “sedentary” because it required up to six hours of sitting and two hours of standing or walking per day. Nord consulted with a physician … Continue Reading

Terminated Executive Was Not Entitled To Receive Unvested Stock Options

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes
Oracle Corp. v. Falotti, 319 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) Oracle Corporation terminated the employment of Pier Carlo Falotti, a senior executive of the company who was based in Switzerland, four months before he was scheduled to vest in stock options that were worth more than $85 million. Oracle filed this action in federal court … Continue Reading

Claims For Severance Benefits Were Not Preempted By ERISA

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Employment Contracts, Employment Law Notes, ERISA
Winterrowd v. American General Annuity Ins. Co., 321 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2003) Three commissioned sales employees were laid off after their employer’s parent company was acquired by American General Corporation. As commissioned salespeople, the employees were not eligible for severance benefits under the employer’s Job Security Plan. However, the employees were offered and did … Continue Reading

Military Leave Benefits Are Not Owed To Employee Who Serves In Another State’s Militia

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes, Leaves of Absence, Military Leave
Opinion of Att’y Gen. Bill Lockyer, No. 02-213, 2003 WL 174019 (Jan. 24, 2003) In this opinion, the California Attorney General determined that employees who are residents of and employed in California are not entitled to the employment-related benefits established under California Military & Veterans Code § 395.05 for leaves of absence occasioned by service … Continue Reading

Employee Permitted To Proceed With Breach Of Contract Action Involving Stock Options

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes
Alexander v. Codemasters Group Ltd., 104 Cal. App. 4th 129 (2002) Craig Alexander alleged breach of contract against Codemasters (a United Kingdom-based computer game company) for its failure to provide Alexander (a former executive with the company) with options to purchase 35,000 shares of Codemasters’ stock at an exercise price of $3.25 per share. In … Continue Reading

Court Approves $27 Million Fee Award To Attorneys In Microsoft Benefits Suit

By Tony Oncidi on Posted in Class Actions, Employee Benefits, Employment Law Notes
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) In this class action, eight former “freelance” Microsoft workers alleged that the company had improperly deprived them of employee benefits, including participation in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Nine years after the case was filed, the parties settled the matter when Microsoft agreed to pay … Continue Reading
LexBlog

This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.

OK