RPNA’s $89 million judgment in a landmark class action employment suit was highlighted in the February 6, 2017 issue of San Fernando Valley Business Journal. The article discusses the impact of the 5-2 decision—which was argued in front of the California Supreme Court by RPNA partners Drew Pomerance and Michael Adreani—on how California employers approach meal and rest breaks. Specifically, it clarifies and sets…
DetailsThanks to technology, employers are essentially now able to track an employee’s every move. Whether it be on the internet, on sales routes, or in a production center, technological advancements have made it easy to monitor an employee’s movements in ways that could only be imagined a couple of decades ago. As we have discussed…
DetailsSince Election Day, speculation about the impact the Trump Administration will have on existing business and employment laws and regulations has abounded. Now that President Trump has taken office, what can we expect? Read on for my thoughts on how the Department of Labor, the EEOC, and the President’s own executive actions may have bearing…
DetailsIn today’s digitally-driven age, it seems that it would be surprising to have an employee who did not have a smartphone, tablet, or other similar device that allowed him to instantly ‘connect’. In fact, many California employers assume that it is a given that their employees own a smartphone and encourage them to also use…
DetailsMost California employers seem to be cognizant of their legal responsibility to implement, if not vigorously consider, reasonable disability accommodations when an employee submits a related request. According to the EEOC, a reasonable accommodation is “any change in the workplace or the way things are customarily done that provides an equal employment opportunity to an…
DetailsCalifornia has several new employment laws on the books, at least one of which may affect employers issuing employment agreements now deemed “against public policy.” Assembly Bill 465, effective January 1, 2017, adds a new section to the Labor Code that prohibits employers from compelling employees to resolve employment disputes outside of California. Such provisions…
DetailsCalifornia business owners: Have you taken a look through your employee handbook in a while? Thanks, in part, to the numerous recent updates to state and federal employment law, it is probably time. The new year is an ideal time to update employment policies. Maintaining current employee handbooks ensures that employees are aware of their…
DetailsThe 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. Nonexempt Employees
DetailsOn 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…
DetailsSupreme 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…
Details