Taking a meal break in California is no simple affair. Culminating seven years of litigation involving one California employer, on February 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of California issued its unanimous opinion in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, resolving two questions regarding California meal periods. The court’s opinion also raised, but did not resolve, questions regarding meal period compliance that will likely challenge employers and litigants for years.
In Davidson v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, No. 18-56188 (August 3, 2020), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court abused its discretion in denying class certification for an employee’s claim for improper rest breaks under California law where the employer allegedly had a facially defective written rest break policy.
On April 16, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order (EO) N-51-20, which imposes new obligations on employers to provide up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to certain food sector workers. The following overview provides answers to common questions, including: (1) which food service workers are covered by EO N-51-20; (2) what an employer’s obligations are to those covered workers; and (3) how EO N-51-20 interacts with other laws.
On January 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California entered an order granting a preliminary injunction requested by the California Trucking Association (CTA), which was represented by Ogletree Deakins shareholders Robert R. Roginson, Alexander M. Chemers, and Spencer C. Skeen, in a matter challenging Assembly Bill (AB) 5 as to motor carriers operating in California.
On January 13, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez left in place a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 5 as to motor carriers operating in California.
On September 11, 2019, the California Assembly passed a bill codifying last year’s Supreme Court of California decision establishing a new test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.
In Duffey v. Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC, the California Court of Appeal for the First District addressed whether an in-home caregiver was an independent contractor or employee.
On January 29, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt New Jersey’s ABC test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
In an order with significant implications for motor carriers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concluded that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted by federal transportation law and may no longer be enforced by the State of California where the driver is subject to federal hours-of-service (HOS) requirements. Specifically, on December 21,
On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply to wage claims brought by an interstate truck driver, even though the plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of California adopted a new test to determine whether a worker performing services for a company is an employee or an independent contractor under California’s wage orders. The new three-factor test, known as the ABC test, will determine whether a company “employs” a worker under the wage orders, which address certain requirements for minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest periods, among others.
On February 28, 2017, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (No. B269657). The decision, which was certified for publication, is the first ruling by a California appellate court requiring employers to separately compensate commissioned employees—as opposed to employees paid by piece rate—for rest periods.