We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
California Employers Score A Rare Victory On Wage Statement Penalties
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2024 WL 1979980 (Cal. S. Ct. 2024)
Gustavo Naranjo, a security guard, filed a putative class action against his former employer, alleging violations of California Labor Code section 226 based upon the employer’s failure to report missed-break meal premiums on employees’ wage statements. Labor Code Section 226 imposes a penalty of up to $4,000 per employee when an
March 2023 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- No Claim By Employee Who Was Friends With Alleged Harasser
- Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Was Properly Dismissed
- Employer That Failed To Layoff Employee Before She Became Disabled May Have Discriminated
- Court Compels Individual But Not
Good Faith Is Defense To Labor Code’s “Knowing And Intentional” Standard
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2023 WL 2261253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
After holding that premium payments from meal and rest period violations under Labor Code section 226.7 constituted “wages,” the California Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeal to resolve two questions: First, whether in failing to timely pay employees premium pay, the trial court erred in finding the employer had
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
Meal/Rest Break Premium Pay Is A “Wage” For Purposes Of Wage Statements And Timely Pay Requirements
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93 (2022)
Gustavo Naranjo alleged that his employer had not provided an additional hour of pay for each day on which Spectrum failed to provide employees with a legally compliant meal break (i.e., had failed to provide “premium pay” pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7). Naranjo further alleged that Spectrum was required to report
May 2019 California Employment Law Notes
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;
- Former Employee’s Claims Against The Salvation
September 2018 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2018 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Employer Must Obtain Written Authorization To Conduct Background Check
- Some Of California’s “Sanctuary State” Employer Obligations Are Struck Down
- No-Employment Provision In Settlement Agreement Is An Unenforceable Restraint
- Court Affirms $500,000 Jury Award To Employee
Employer Of Piece-Rate Employees May Assert Safe-Harbor Defense
Jackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 5th 125 (2018)
Labor Code Section 226.2, which became effective Jan. 1, 2016, addresses the manner in which piece-rate employees are to be compensated for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time on the job (“rest/NP time”). The Court of Appeal held that an employer complying with the statute’s “safe harbor” provision by
Employer Need Not Provide Wage Statement Concurrently With Payment of Employee’s Final Wages
Canales v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 23 Cal. App. 5th 1262 (2018)
Fabio Canales and Andy Cortes sued Wells Fargo under PAGA for an alleged violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226 for failure to provide an itemized wage statement concurrently with a terminated employee’s final wages paid in-store. The trial court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on the ground that it