Showing 116 posts in California.

Changes to Employment laws in California

October 2, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

California employers, take note! The laws are changing! Just this week, new laws have been enacted which affect employees and/or employers, including: More ›

San Francisco Employers may be Required to Consider flex work Arrangements

October 2, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On October 1, 2013, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve new legislation which requires employers in San Francisco to consider and potentially accommodate employees' requests for work schedule changes in order to address caregiving issues. Employers with 20 or more employees would be subject to the law, if enacted, and would have to accept requests from employees for flexible work hours, job-sharing, telecommuting, or other flexible work arrangements. Employers would only be permitted to deny the request if there is a "good faith business reason" for the rejection. What that means, however, remains to be seen. More ›

California Court: Arbitration Agreement does not Override Statutory PAGA Rights

June 10, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Non-exempt hourly auto workers filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of various wage and hour laws, and sought penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The employees had, however, executed the employer’s Employee Dispute Resolution Plan, which provides that all employment-related disputes must be submitted to mediation and arbitration. Employees waived any right they had to pursue, file, participate in, or be represented in disputes filed on a class basis or as a collective or representative action, and the agreement prohibited mediation or arbitration of disputes on a class basis or as a collective or representative action. More ›

California Court Decertifies wage, Break Claims due to lack of Commonality

May 22, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Home delivery newspaper carriers brought suit against the publisher for violations of the California Labor Code, arguing that they were not paid overtime wages, the proper minimum wage, and did not receive rest breaks, among other things. Specifically, the carriers claimed that they were improperly classified as independent contractors, though they were actually more akin to employees, and thus should have received the benefits of being an employee (such as receiving overtime wages). More ›

California Court Finds Compensation Scheme does not meet Salary Basis test, Denies Exemption

May 17, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The California Court of Appeals recently considered whether a compensation scheme which is based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, may be considered a “salary” within the meaning of wage and hour laws.  More ›

California Supreme Court: Continuous Accrual Principles Apply to 17200 Claims

January 24, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Today the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in the Aryeh case regarding the application of the common law theory of continuous accrual to actions under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.) Though the case does not expressly address labor or employment issues, the case is nevertheless important for California employers, as the majority of employment litigation claims made are coupled with a 17200 claim.  More ›

Employee’s Spouse’s loss of Consortium Claim Barred by Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Rule

August 30, 2012 by Olga Simanovsky

The California Supreme Court recently found that an employee's spouse could not recover for loss of consortium in his civil employment action, even considering the "power press" exception to the Labor Code.  More ›

NFL Player Denied Right to Workers’ Compensation Benefits in California

August 7, 2012 by Mellissa A. Schafer

Former professional football player Bruce Matthews was a 19 year veteran of the NFL who retired in 2002 when he was with the Tennessee Titans. In 2008, he filed a claim in California claiming a right to workers' compensation benefits, even though there was no specific injury in California. After the claim was filed, the Titans filed a grievance against Matthews arguing that the suit violated his employment contract which specifically provided that any workers' compensation claim would be governed by Tennessee law. Due to a binding arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement, the parties ultimately arbitrated the dispute. The arbitrator found the choice of law provision to be valid and controlling, and ordered Matthews to "cease and desist" with the filing in California. Subsequently, Matthews filed suit in federal court to vacate the arbitration award. The District Court denied his request and confirmed the Arbitrator's Award. More ›

California Court Compels Arbitration and Dismissal of Class Claims, Invalidating Gentry Based on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

June 4, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

For many years, pursuant to Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, California courts have held that class waiver provisions in arbitration agreements should not be enforced if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of redressing the rights of affected employees. But that was before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its April 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, holding that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced pursuant to their terms. Further, the Supreme Court held that “requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme consistent with the FAA.” More ›

CA Court Finds Arbitration Agreement with Modification Provisions to be Illusory

April 23, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The California Court of Appeals recently found an employer's arbitration agreement to be "illusory" because it contained a modification provision which stated that the employer had the right to amend, modify, or revoke the arbitration contract on 30 days' written notice, and at the end of the 30-day period, a contract change applies to any claim that has not been filed with the American Arbitration Association. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives