On March 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Among other important provisions, the CARES Act dramatically expands the availability of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits to workers impacted by COVID-19 who otherwise would not normally receive such benefits, including independent contractors and other so-called gig workers.
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 what appears to be a first, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has weighed in on the status of gig economy workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the form of an opinion letter.
In the waning days of his final term of office and on the last possible day under the legislative calendar, on September 30, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a trio of bills into law that should have a dramatic effect on the ability of workers to bring claims for harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group., Inc., No.E057529 (December 23, 2014): Challenges to the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements continue to be a hotly litigated area of California wage and hour law, specifically in class and representative actions. In another such example, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct that one franchisee employee directed toward another franchisee employee. The state high court
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) may have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by barring male sheriff deputies from supervising female inmates at county jails. The three-judge panel held that the SFSD had failed to prove that its discriminatory policy was justifiable under the “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) exception. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the trial court for further review.
White v. County of Los Angeles, B243471 (April 15, 2014): In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that an employer can seek a second opinion of an employee’s fitness for duty after the employee returns from leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In reversing a lower court’s decision, the
Four major Silicon Valley-based tech companies—Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe Systems—announced a settlement on Thursday, April 24, in a closely-watched lawsuit accusing them of conspiring to hold down salaries in the tech industry, just weeks before the case was scheduled to go to trial in San Jose. Although the terms…..
California Governor Jerry Brown on August 28, 2013, signed into law a measure limiting the ability of employers to obtain attorneys’ fee awards if they are prevailing defendants in wage disputes.
Senate Bill (SB) 462 amends section 218.5 of the California Labor Code to provide that a prevailing employer may only…..
A California Court of Appeal recently held that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionably one-sided. The agreement, which was required to be signed by all job applicants, was unenforceable because it required arbitration of employment issues such as discrimination, but allowed the employer access to the courts for disputes over trade secrets and unfair competition.
Court Finds Labor Code Applies Even To Short Assignments A unanimous California Supreme Court recently held that California-based employers must pay out-of-state resident employees pursuant to the more restrictive provisions of the California Labor Code even if these employees only visit the state on a limited, temporary basis. The unanimous decision held that the state’s
On June 30, 2011, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that California-based employers must pay out-of-state resident employees pursuant to the more restrictive provisions of the California Labor Code even if these employees visit the state on a limited, temporary basis. The unanimous decision held that the state’s overtime laws were intended by the California
