On July 3, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 188 — also known as the CROWN Act — and made California the first state in the country to outlaw discrimination based on “natural hair,” including afros, braids, twists, and locks. CROWN stands for Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural hair. According to… Read More
Clever Contract Language Cannot Defeat Labor Code 218.5’s Fee-Shifting Effect
Under existing California law, an employee who prevails on his/her claims against an employer for non-payment of wages is entitled to recover his/her attorneys’ fees in addition to the unpaid wages owed. But the same is not true for an employer who prevails. Under existing California law, an employer is not entitled to recover its… Read More
A New Approach to Employee Benefits?
Recruiting and retaining talent is a challenge for every employer, especially in the red-hot economy here in the Bay Area. That’s why many employers are taking a fresh look at their employee benefits and asking, “Are these benefits really adding value?” A recent article in Forbes explains how “forward thinking” employers are embracing a new theory of… Read More
SCOTUS Rules Employees Cannot Band Together in Class Arbitrations
In yet another split 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus v. Varela that employees at a California business could not band together in a class-wide arbitration. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled, each employee was required to proceed independently in an individual arbitration. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the arbitration agreement that… Read More
One Day, Two Opposite Results in Arbitration Cases
On the same day, two different California appellate courts reached opposite conclusions as to whether an employer’s arbitration agreement was enforceable or not. Subcontracting Concepts v. DeMelo — Arbitration Agreement Void and Unenforceable In one case, Subcontracting Concepts, LLC v. DeMelo, the Court found that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable…. Read More
Employers Catch a Break on Wage Statement Requirements
Under California Labor Code §226(a), California employers are required to provide wage statements to employees that contain 9 different pieces of information. One of the requirements is that the wage statement must show “the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer.” Given the statute’s use of the term “legal entity,” most California… Read More
An Employee’s Single PAGA Claim Cannot Be Split into Arbitration and Litigation Pieces
Back in 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles that an individual employee who has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate his “individual damages claims.” However, if that employee joins a representative PAGA claim to his other damages claims, that PAGA claim cannot be sent to arbitration… Read More
Incentive Compensation Systems Negatively Impact Employee Mental Health?
In a first-of-its-kind academic study that looked at both employee compensation and medical records, researchers at Washington University found that employee health and wellness declines as the employer shifts compensation towards bonuses and other incentive and performance-based compensation systems. In particular, the study showed that, as an employer moves towards a bonus-focused, pay-for-performance model of… Read More
Employee’s “Imprecise” Memory is Sufficient if Employer Fails to Keep Records
In Furry v. East Bay Publishing, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee’s “imprecise” memory is sufficient evidence to support his claim for wages and overtime owed when the employer fails to keep accurate records of the employee’s work hours. The employer in Furry did not keep track of the hours its employees worked…. Read More
Employers Beware: Call-In Scheduling Policies Trigger Reporting Time Pay
The California Court of Appeal recently ruled in Ward v. Tilly’s Inc. that employers who utilize “on call” scheduling have to pay reporting time pay to their employees. This decision is sending shockwaves through California’s restaurant and retail industries because it will significantly increase payroll costs for those employers — and all others who require… Read More
