The distinction between exempt and non-exempt employees can, at times, be unclear for many employers. State and federal law may apply regardless. Indeed, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that employers classify jobs as either exempt or nonexempt, so misclassifying an employee, even unintentionally, can result in serious legal trouble.
On January 1, 2017, employers in California with headquarters outside of the Golden State will be treated the same as in-state employers insofar as applying California Law. Labor Code Section 925, which applies to employment contracts with employees who live and work primarily in California, prohibits the use of contract provisions that apply another state’s law or require adjudication of disputes in another state as a condition of the employment of an individual who primarily resides and works in California.
Supreme Court Reinstates $89 Million Judgment in Landmark Class Action Employment Suit
Decision expected to carry significant ramifications for the California workplace for years to come.
The Supreme Court of California today overturned an appellate court ruling in the landmark case of Augustus v. ABM Security Services, ending an eleven-year battle and upholding the trial court decision that “on-duty” rest breaks are in violation of California wage and hour laws. The court reinstated the trial court’s award of $89.7 million in wages, interest and penalties to a class of approximately 15,000 former and present ABM security guards. Lead counsel for the class were Drew Pomerance and Michael Adreani of Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP (RPNA).
The Supreme Court’s precedential decision clarifies and sets forth the standard for all California employers to easily follow: that employees need to be relieved of all duties during their rest break.