In 2016, Assembly Bill No. 1732, also known as the “All-Gender” Bathroom Bill (Bathroom Bill), was introduced to the California legislature and subsequently signed into law by Governor Brown. The Bathroom Bill was sponsored by California NOW, Equality California, and the Transgender Law Center because “restrict[ing] access to single-occupancy restrooms by gender create problems of safety, fairness, and convenience.” And recently, the bill went into effect.
Various types of insurance policies have a provision within them that gives the policyholder the right to have an attorney (who is appointed and paid for by the insurance company) represent them in the event that they are named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Read on for 4 ways to improve the odds of the case being settled or decided in your favor.
Today, many businesses use arbitration as a means of resolving claims that arise. Indeed, many California consumer agreements contain arbitration clauses.
However, the California Supreme Court recently narrowed the protection of arbitration agreements with class action waivers. Financial services entities and other businesses will be required to review their current contractual provisions to ensure compliance in the Golden State.
California Supreme Court: Public Employees’ Work-Related Texts and Emails on Private Devices are “Public Records”
According to the California Supreme Court, public employees’ communications about official agency business may be subject to California Public Records Act (CPRA). This extends to communications on personal computers, smartphones, tablets, etc…
While this is a case involving a public sector employer and the CPRA, I foresee that it may – and sooner than later — be relevant to private sector employers and “bring your own device” policies (more on those here), as well as private sector employees’ privacy interests.
Employers: Did you know that inside sales commission-based employees must be separately paid for their rest breaks? In another win for employees across the state, a California court recently held that certain employees paid on commission are also covered by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order requirement that “rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.” Last year, an appellate court held that employees who are paid on a piece-rate basis must be separately compensated for rest breaks and other non-productive time. Now, another Court of Appeals has extended this requirement to employees who are paid on a commission basis.
RPNA Wins Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel Based On Conflict Of Interest And Breech Of Confidentiality
Co-Managing Partner Nick Roxborough and co-counsel Jeffrey D. Farrow of Michelman & Robinson, recently won a motion to disqualify Nixon Peabody LLP from representing a plaintiff in an ongoing worker’s compensation dispute after the firm hired opposing defense counsel in the case. The decision, which was made by a Superior Court Judge in Orange County last Friday, was featured in the Daily Journal [subscription required].
RPNA Partner Michael Adreani advised employers at a recent conference on how to avoid costly litigation, often in the form of class actions, for violations of California’s meal and rest period requirements. Adreani, who won an $89 million judgment in a landmark class action employment suit last December, was invited to share his insights at…
RPNA Partner Michael Adreani advises employers to have their practices signed off by all employees to ensure acknowledgement and to stay apprised of the ever-changing California Labor Code to avoid legal actions brought under PAGA, the Private Attorneys General Act. Adreani was asked for expert commentary in a recent San Fernando Valley Business Journal article…
Many are questioning whether, under the Trump Administration, the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) community will be given the same protections provided to it during the Obama administration. The most accurate (and surely frustrating) answer to this question is, “it depends.”
Overtime pay, or the alleged lack thereof, is an issue we regularly see pop up in the California courts. While California employers generally recognize that non-exempt employees (e.g. many hourly employees) who work overtime must receive overtime premiums on their base pay, not all are aware that these premiums may also be required on other, “supplemental” aspects of compensation to nonexempt employees. A common example? Bonuses.