On October 6, 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 299 (“SB 299”) which will require all California employers with more than 5 employees to continue group health insurance coverage for up to 4 months for employees on pregnancy disability leave (“PDL”). This represents a major change in California law. What is S.B. 299? Existing California… Read More
HR & Employment Law Blog
NLRB Clarifies its Position on Employers’ Social Media Policies
On August 18, 2011, in response to a growing number of disputes between employers and employees concerning employees’ use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media, the NLRB clarified its rules for determining (1) when employees are engaging in protected activity, and (2) when employers are using illegal social media policies. These latest clarifications… Read More
Court Sets Brinker Oral Argument for November 8, 2011
On October 4, 2011, the California Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in the long-awaited and much-anticipated meal and rest break case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court [i] on November 8, 2011. The Issue in Brinker The fundamental question before the California Supreme Court in Brinker is whether California employers must ensure… Read More
Court Clarifies “Reporting Time” Pay Requirements for Employee Meetings
According to a new decision by the California Court of Appeal, restaurants and other employers who call mandatory employee meetings and require off-duty employees to attend are required to pay off-duty employees only 2 hours of reporting time pay. Background California employers are required to pay “reporting time” pay to employees who show up for… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Pro-Business Arbitration Ruling
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts state laws that condition the enforceability of an entire class of arbitration agreements on whether or not they allow for classwide arbitration. The issue in the case was whether AT&T’s customer arbitration agreement,… Read More
San Francisco’s New Mobile Food Truck Law
On March 7, 2011, the City & County of San Francisco begins its new Mobile Food Facilities Program (MFFP). The MFFP, which is administered by the San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW), is designed to make it faster, easier, and far less expensive for operators of food trucks and other “mobile food facilities” to… Read More
Employment Arbitration Agreements After Sonic Calabasas v. Moreno
On February 24, 2011, a divided California Supreme Court ruled in Sonic Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, S174475, that a worker who signs an otherwise valid pre-employment arbitration agreement does not give up his statutory right to seek administrative relief through Labor Commissioner hearings. In other words, even if that worker signed a mandatory arbitration… Read More
Recording Customers’ Zip Codes Violates California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., S178241, that a customer’s ZIP code is “personal identification information” under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act[1] of 1971. Therefore, retailers in California cannot ask a customer to provide a ZIP code at purchase without violating California law. The Court’s Ruling… Read More
Governor Signs SB 602 Requiring Safety Training for California “Food Handlers”
On September 25, 2010, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 602, known as the “California Food Handler Card Law.” [i] This new law requires all “food handlers” in the State to have a food handler card on or before July 1, 2011. The law was designed to reduce the potential for foodborne illness by guaranteeing… Read More
CA Supreme Court Rules that Employees Cannot Sue for “Tip Pooling” Violations
On August 9, 2010, the California Supreme Court gave restaurant and other hospitality employers a victory in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens, 50 Cal. 4th 592 (2010), by holding that California Labor Code Section 351 does not contain a private right to sue. Therefore, a tipped employee in California cannot sue his employer in court for… Read More
