There is potentially some more bad news for California employers affected by the recent wave of “independent contractor” decisions. The California Court of Appeal recently held that the ABC test as outlined in the 2018 California Supreme Court Dynamex decision applies retroactively to pending litigation on wage and hour cases. The opinion in Gonzales v.…Details
The Court of Appeal concluded that many of the disputed wage and hour claims in an underlying lawsuit are potentially subject to coverage under an employment practices liability insurance (“EPLI”) policy despite a wage and hour exclusion. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC (“SCPC”) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging…Details
1. “Call-In” Shifts Trigger Reporting Time Wages On February 4, 2019, a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal, in Ward v. Tilly’s Inc., held that certain on call scheduling triggered the Wage Order’s reporting time pay requirements, effectively putting an end to a common scheduling practice in California. In this case, employees of Tilly’s,…Details
In the recent case of NEW PRIME INC. v. OLIVEIRA, the United States Supreme Court carved out an important exception to the rule that arbitration agreements are typically enforceable to prevent employees from bringing actions in court, when it ruled unanimously that workers engaged in interstate commerce can avoid arbitration agreements and have their grievances…Details
New California law requires that all employers of five or more employees must provide one hour of sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention training to non-managerial employees and two hours of sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention training to managerial employees once every two years. Prior law only required training of supervisory employees. Under the…Details
As many business owners are aware, the California Supreme Court recently threw employers a serious curveball with respect to how employers must calculate overtime. Adding to the confusion, the Court stated employers should have been aware of this calculation method even though the same California Supreme Court declared it void over 20 years ago.
The EEOC shows no signs of slowing down when it comes to its strategic enforcement of federal workplace discrimination laws. Indeed, EEOC litigation picked up in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, and the agency just held a major public hearing in October to emphasize the attention its placing on workplace harassment.
The #MeToo movement has certainly had an impact on how employers do business in California. But even before this, California was long considered to be a trailblazer in the area of sexual harassment law. Indeed, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act mirrors Title VII and employers in other states often look to sexual harassment cases…Details
California’s stringent laws against the enforcement of non-compete agreements and non-solicitation agreements between employers and employees are well-known. Put simply, non-compete agreements and non-solicitation agreements regarding the solicitation of customers are not enforceable, but non-solicitation agreements regarding the solicitation of other employees may be enforced within limited circumstances.
For many businesses, intellectual property is the glue that holds the company together. These assets provide financial – and job – security for many. With this in mind it’s a wonder that so many companies do not have invention assignments in place.