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. DeMel0 — 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,… 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
2019 Brings New Laws and Obligations for California Employers
Last year was a busy legislative year in California. The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements in particular spawned a host of new employment laws that took effect on January 1st. If you haven’t done so already, you should review your employee handbook and personnel policies to make sure that you are in compliance with these new laws. SB… Read More
Dynamex “ABC Test” Limited to Wage and Hour Claims Only
It was only 8 months ago that the California Supreme Court announced its bombshell ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court and announced the new test for determining when a worker was an employee or independent contractor. This new test was dubbed the “ABC Test” because, for a worker to properly considered an independent contractor,… Read More
Employers’ Group Sues California Claiming PAGA is Unconstitutional
Last week, an employers’ group that represents small and medium sized business across California sued the State claiming that its Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) statute was unconstitutional. As readers of this blog know, PAGA is a controversial state statute, found in the Labor Code, that allows an individual employee to “stand in the shoes… Read More
Section 998 Offers Cannot Shift Attorneys’ Fees to Plaintiffs in FEHA Cases
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCC”) §1032. But under CCP §998, a party may make an “offer to compromise,” which can cut-off and even reverse the parties’ right to recover costs after the date of the… Read More
