The California Supreme Court has held that an employee who makes a whistleblower complaint to his or her employer may bring a retaliation claim under the whistleblower statute (Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b)) even if the subject of the complaint was already known to the employer. The employee, who worked as
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal., 2018 WL 1146645 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018)
Hector Alvarado, who worked as a warehouse associate for Dart, is a member of a putative class of employees who, in addition to their normal hourly wages, received a $15 per day attendance bonus if they were scheduled to work on a Saturday or Sunday and did so, completing their
Taylor v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 4 Cal. App. 5th 801 (2016)
Following an inspection, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) discovered that Aaron’s Automotive (“Taylor”) had been in operation since 2007 but had never acquired workers’ compensation insurance coverage as required by Labor Code § 3700. The DLSE issued a Penalty Assessment Order, assessing a penalty against Taylor in the amount of
See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 5305729 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Pamela Silva sued her former employer, See’s Candy, for various wage-and-hour violations. After certifying a class of current and former California employees, the trial court granted Silva’s motion for summary adjudication on four of See’s Candy’s affirmative defenses. In a writ petition to the Court of Appeal, See’s Candy challenged
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2012 WL 3538753 (9th Cir. 2012)
Susan J. Peabody was employed as a commissioned salesperson by Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) for approximately 10 months. Peabody’s commissions were based on the revenue generated by advertising that was aired every broadcast month, which lasted four or five weeks. Peabody also received a base salary of $20,000 per year. During her
Please visit the update to this entry, available here.
On the eve of the implementation of California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011, the California Labor Commissioner has made available to employers a template Notice (Word / pdf) that complies with the requirements of new Labor Code § 2810.5. Beginning January 1, 2012, Section 2810.5 requires employers to furnish specified wage information captured by the Notice to most non-exempt employees. All required information must be provided to employees in the language that the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information.
California Labor Code § 515.5 exempts computer software professionals from the overtime pay requirements imposed by Labor Code § 510, provided they meet certain requirements. To qualify as exempt, these professionals must perform the functions enumerated in the statute and receive a minimum hourly rate of pay. The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has announced that effective January 1, 2012, the minimum rate for qualifying computer software professionals will be $38.89 per hour (up from $37.94 per hour in 2011), with commensurate increases in the monthly and annual minimum rates. Certain licensed physicians and surgeons are similarly exempt from state overtime requirements, so long as they are compensated at a minimum pay rate; effective January 1st, this minimum rate increases from $69.13 to $70.86 per hour.
Heritage Residential Care, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, 192 Cal. App. 4th 75 (2011)
Heritage Residential, a company that operates seven residential care facilities, employed 24 workers, 16 of whom lacked social security numbers. Heritage treated the 16 employees who did not have social security numbers as independent contractors and issued them 1099 statements rather than itemized wage statements. Following a workplace
In an opinion letter issued on November 25, 2008, the DLSE determined that an employer may make deductions from wages to reflect predictable and expected wage overpayments made in the immediately prior paycheck so long as the employer has obtained the employee’s voluntary, written authorization to do so. See http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/OpinionLetters-byDate.htm.
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008)
In this case, the Court of Appeal decided a number important issues concerning employee class action claims for alleged rest break violations, meal period and “early lunching” violations and off-the-clock/“time shaving” violations. The Court of Appeal determined the claims were not amenable to class treatment because individual issues predominated and, accordingly, granted