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:

Wood v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 88 Cal. App. 5th 742 (2023)

Ana Wood brought a PAGA action against her employer Kaiser for alleged failure to correctly pay for three paid sick days as required under California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (the “Act”). The Act provided for compensatory relief and civil penalties, but restricted relief to equitable, injunctive, or restitutionary relief when brought by

Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 2018 WL 6445360 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

AMN used a computer-based timekeeping system for all nonexempt employees, including plaintiffs/nurse recruiters. The timekeeping system rounded recruiters’ punch times (both punch in and punch out) to the nearest 10-minute increment. To establish the proper hourly compensation, AMN converted each 10-minute increment to a decimal (to the nearest hundredth of a minute),

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 557 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2009)

The Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its published opinion in this case and certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court: (1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for

Pineda v. Bank of Am., N.A., 170 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2009)

Jorge Pineda filed this class action against Bank of America for unpaid wages and for “waiting-time” penalties under Labor Code § 203. Although Pineda gave the bank two weeks’ advance notice of his resignation, the bank failed to pay him his final pay until four days after his employment had ended. Pineda

Blakemore v. Superior Court, 129 Cal. App. 4th 36 (2005)

In this class action, Raven Blakemore and several other women who sold Avon beauty products as independent sales representatives alleged, among other things, a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The representatives alleged that Avon would “stuff” unwanted or unordered merchandise in with products they did order and would then refuse to credit