On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination and assures LGBTQ employees of equal treatment in all “terms and conditions” of employment. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump… Read More
A Successful Plaintiff Gets Attorneys’ Fees Calculated at $750/hour
In Caldera v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Court of Appeal was asked to determine the proper amount of attorneys’ fees that should be awarded to a disabled employee who won a $500,000 verdict at trial. The employee, Augustine Caldera, complained that his supervisors regularly harassed and mocked him because of his stutter…. Read More
California Passes SB 78, a Statewide Version of Obamacare
Effective January 1, 2020, and as a result of the passage of Senate Bill (“SB”) 78, California now has a statewide healthcare mandate that is similar to the federal Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Like the federal ACA, California’s new mandate requires most California residents to purchase and maintain “minimum essential coverage” for healthcare. Also like… Read More
Court Blocks AB 51 From Taking Effect on January 1, 2020
AB 51 was signed by Governor Newsom back in October 2019. AB 51 generally prohibited employers from requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to agree to arbitrate any future Labor Code claims and/or Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims. AB 51 also made it illegal for employers to use an “opt out” provision… Read More
California Supreme Court Gives Employers a PAGA Victory
In a rare “win” for California employers, the California Supreme Court recently ruled in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court that the “underpaid wages” authorized by Labor Code §558 are not recoverable in a PAGA action. California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) As readers of this blog know well, PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to bring an… Read More
Use “No Rehire” Provisions in Separation Agreements? Not Anymore…
When an employee separates from a company – whether voluntarily or involuntarily – employers generally don’t want that employee to apply for work again, or to have any chance of dealing with a subsequent lawsuit or claim for “failure to hire.” When paying severance or separation pay, or when settling with an employee, employers want… Read More
Missed Meal/Rest Periods Don’t Trigger Waiting Time Penalties
The California Court of Appeals recently ruled in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services that an employer’s failure to pay meal or rest period premium pay for an employee who is denied a meal period does not trigger derivative (a) waiting time penalties under Labor Code §203, or (b) pay stub violation penalties under Labor Code… Read More
McDonald’s Corp. is Not a Joint Employer of Restaurant Employees
On October 1, 2019, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Salazar v. McDonalds Corp. that McDonald’s was not a “joint employer” of 1,400 employees who worked at various Bay Area McDonald’s restaurants owned and operated by the Haynes Family Limited Partnership (“Haynes”). As a result, only Haynes – and not McDonald’s Corp…. Read More
Governor Newsom Signs AB 5 and Codifies Dynamex’s “ABC Test” for Independent Contractors
On September 18, 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB 5 into law and, in the process, fundamentally changed the California economy by making it even harder for a business to qualify a worker as an independent contractor. The Dynamex Decision As readers of this blog know, in May 2018 the California Supreme Court, in its landmark… Read More
Employers Increasingly Using Anti-SLAPP Motions in Retaliation Cases
California’s anti-SLAPP statute allows a defendant to bring a special motion to strike any cause of action in a plaintiff’s lawsuit that arises from “any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.”… Read More
