Labor & Employment

The statute of limitations on a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment starts running only when the employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer's decision not to promote him or her.  Any period of time during which the employer's decision is not disclosed or otherwise made known to the employee does not count against the limitations period. Read More

Following Kim v. Reins Internat. California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, this decision holds that the fact that the plaintiff's individual claim is time-barred does not prevent him from bringing a PAGA action to collect civil penalties as to the employer's Labor Code violations as to other employees within the limitations period.  Lab. Code 2699(c) requires only that the plaintiff… Read More

Like several other decisions, this one concludes that later U.S. Supreme Court opinions have not overruled or cast doubt on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348.  It remains true that an employer cannot compel an employee to arbitrate a PAGA claim and that the FAA does not preempt that rule. Read More

Under Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1881, state law supplements federal law governing matters on the outer continental shelf only to the extent that there is a gap in federal law.  If federal law already addresses the issue, it excludes state law.  This decision holds that the FLSA addresses the issue of meal and rest… Read More

If an employer fails to give its employee the required 10-minute rest breaks or 30-minute meal break, it owes the employee an hour's premium pay calculated at the employee's "regular rate of compensation." Lab. Code 226.7(c). This decision holds that "regular rate of compensation" has the same meaning than "regular rate of pay" used to compute overtime compensation. Lab. Code… Read More

In a case involving a retaliatory firing of a deputy fire marshal, the appellate court affirms the judgment finding the defendant city liable, but reverses the award of $2 million for past noneconomic damages and $1.5 million in future noneconomic damages as excessive given the slight evidence of emotional distress, the fact that plaintiff found other employment, the fact that… Read More

An employee who had complained about his supervisor, was terminated and then claimed retaliation for his whistleblowing was not required to exhuast his administrative remedies before the employer's human relations commission because the commission's decision would have been subject to review and change by the supervisor in consultation with the mayor.  To have the personally involved supervisor (who had been… Read More

This decision affirms a judgment holding that Certified Tire's method of compensating its technicians did not violate California's wage & hour laws.  The compensation formula gave each technician a base salary rate that was above the minimum wage but allowed the technician to increase his hourly rate by performing more production work that customers paid for during the work week. … Read More

Employer sued the union and its workers for RICO violations, claiming that the workers and the union had conspired to fraudulently furnish timesheets reporting hours that were not actually worked, causing employer to overpay the workers by $5.3 million.  Over a strong dissent, this opinion holds that the suit is preempted by section 301 of the LMRA because the collective… Read More

Distinguishing Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.4th 542, this decision holds that in calculating the "regular rate of pay" for overtime work by a "dual rate" employee, the employer is not required to use the weighted average method of computing regular rate of pay but may instead calculate regular rate of pay by using the rate-in-effect… Read More

CCP 527.8(o) allows a respondent in a workplace harassment injunction action one mandatory continuance in which to respond to the petition.  This decision holds that when the respondent has already filed a written response to the petition, 527.8(o) is inapplicable, and the respondent is not entitled to a continuance of the injunction hearing absent a showing of good cause under… Read More

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board's access regulation (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 20900) gives agricultural labor unions a limited right to access to agricultural workers while on their employer's property for an hour before and after work and during the lunch hour for four months out of the year.  This decision holds that the regulation is a per se… Read More

A shareholder in a California-based corporation has Article III standing to sue the California Secretary of State to seek to enjoin SB 826 (2018) which enacted Corp. Code  301.3, 2115.5, requiring covered corporations to have at least one female director by 2019 and up to three female directors by 2021.  Even though the statute is directed against corporations, not their… Read More

Gov. Code 12965(b) is an exception to the normal cost provisions of CCP 1032.  Hence, when, as in this case, the plaintiff loses her FEHA claims but prevails on other claims, she is not entitled to recover costs incurred solely in relation to the FEHA claims.  Also, since the total recovery in this case was less than the amount that… Read More

When an employee is the prevailing party on claims for minimum or overtime wages, she is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee on the claim pursuant to Lab. Code 1194.  That section prevails over Lab. Code 1031, which would otherwise limit the attorney fee to 20% of the recovery if the employee recovers less than $300.  The two statutes conflict,… Read More

Hockey is a model whose authorized agent contracted for her to perform a 10-hour day's modeling for Brighton for $3,000 payable on receipt of the agent's invoice.  After modeling as agreed, Hockey sued Brighton, claiming it was her employer and that it violated Lab. Code 201 by not paying her the full amount due at the time her employment ended… Read More

Wal-Mart pays workers regular wages plus a quarterly bonus for good work during the quarter. Under California law, the bonus is regular wages which must be used to compute overtime time.  But since Wal-Mart doesn't know until the end of the quarter whether it will pay a worker the bonus, its biweekly pay statements don't include the bonus in calculating… Read More

Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction over portions of a PAGA suit that attack alleged wage and hour regulations which did not injure the named plaintiff.  A PAGA suit does not fall within the qui tam action exception to the ordinary Article III requirement that the plaintiff has sustained injury from the wrong he sues to redress.  Unlike a traditional… Read More

Employer sufficiently complied with Lab. Code 226 and its requirement that wage statements show “all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee” by showing the overtime pay rate as .5 times the average hourly pay rate--and including overtime hours in the normal hourly category… Read More

Under Lab. Code 558.1, an owner, officer, director, or managing agent of the employer may be held liable for the employer's violation, if the owner, officer, director or managing agent "violates or causes to be violated" an IWC wage order or certain wage and hour sections of the Labor Code.  This decision holds that to be liable under section 558.1,… Read More