Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. that employers must relieve employees of all work duties during their 10-minute rest breaks. This landmark decision now means that employers must treat rest breaks and meal breaks the same — and that employers must relinquish all control over employees during both… Read More
Posts Categorized In: Employment Litigation
The Defend Trade Secrets Act Allows Trade Secrets Owners to Sue in Federal Court
A new federal law, called the “Defend Trade Secrets Act” (DTSA), was passed on May 11, 2016. Now, for the first time, trade secret owners can bring civil actions in federal courts for misappropriation of any trade secret that is “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or… Read More
California Court Issues First-Ever Ruling Recognizing Associational Disability Discrimination
The California Court of Appeals has, for the first time ever, held that healthy employees without any disability — but who are “associated” with a disabled person who needs their assistance — are protected under California’s disability discrimination law. Thus, as a result of this decision, California employers are now obligated to engage in the… Read More
CA Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of “Prevailing Party”
California law states that the “prevailing party” in a lawsuit is entitled to recover its costs from the other party. The law defines the “prevailing party” as “the party with a net monetary recovery” and “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered.” So what happens when a plaintiff sues a defendant but, before… Read More
California Reclaims Spot as #1 “Judicial Hellhole” in America
California has once again been ranked the #1 “Judicial Hellhole” in America by the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF). This is the third time in four years that California has claimed the title. The exception was last year, when New York stole the top ranking due to “monumentally egregious corruption” in the city’s asbestos court…. Read More
Governor Brown Signs AB 1506, Giving Employers an Opportunity to Cure Certain PAGA Violations
On October 2, 2015, Governor Brown signed AB 1506 which amends California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) to allow employers the cure certain pay stub violations which otherwise could have triggered PAGA liability. Under existing California law, an employer must present each employee with an itemized pay stub that includes all the required information —… Read More
Employers Must Withhold Payroll Taxes on Settlements or Judgments Awarding Lost Wages
California employment lawyers have long argued about whether (or not) an employer can pay a settlement to an employee and issue a 1099 to the employee for the settlement amount. Most employers insist on issuing the settlement check subject to usual payroll tax withholdings, reported on a W-2. However, in many cases, to maximize the… Read More
California Court Refuses to Enforce Texas Choice of Law and Forum Selection Clause
California employers sometimes try to avoid the employee-friendly rules embedded in California law by inserting choice of law clauses into employment contracts. These clauses stipulate that, in the event of a dispute between the employer and employee, the laws of the State of Texas (or some other employer-friendly state) shall govern the dispute. In addition,… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Proving Religious Discrimination
On June 1, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch that, for an employee to successfully prove a religious discrimination case, that employee need only prove that his/her need for an accommodation was a “motivating factor” in the employe’s adverse employment decision. There is no requirement that the employee prove… Read More
CA Supreme Court Clarifies When Defendants Can Get Fees and Costs Awarded in FEHA Actions
On May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District that a successful defendant in a FEHA case can get awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs only when “the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit.” In other… Read More