Labor & Employment

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this overtime pay case, finding plaintiff had not shown that common issues predominated.  Though there was a common question about whether defendant violated California labor law in calculating the amount of overtime pay (because in computing base pay it divided the flat bonus for weekend worked by… Read More

This decision affirms an order remanding this wage and hour case on the ground that the employer failed to sustain its burden of proving--in response to a factual challenge to its removal notice--that potential damages exceeded $5 million.  A plaintiff may raise a factual challenge by attacking the removing defendant's assumptions, even without providing any contrary assumptions or any evidence… Read More

This decision reverses a judgment confirming an arbitration award.  The arbitrator exceeded his powers by issuing an award that enforced an employment contract's provision that violated the employee's unwaivable statutory rights.  The employment agreement's confidentiality clause was so broadly written that it prohibited the employee from using any information not generally known to the securities industry for the benefit of… Read More

Disagreeing with Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 308, this decision holds that Labor Code 218.5 and 1194 prescribe one-way fee and cost awards in employee suits for minimum wage and overtime pay, precluding the application of CCP 1032 and CCP 998, which only changes the normal prevailing party determination under CCP 1032.  An employer may recover… Read More

In this suit for unpaid wages, plaintiff successfully opposed defendant's motion to transfer the case to the court's limited jurisdiction division, but then failed to recover damages exceeding the limited jurisdiction's maximum.  CCP 1033 provides that when this occurs,, the court may deny the plaintiff costs, including attorney fees. Without deciding whether the fee-shifting provisions of various Labor Code sections… Read More

Under Lab. Code 515(a) and Wage Order No. 44 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040), an employer need not pay overtime pay to an employee who (1) is primarily engaged in exempt duties and (2) earns “a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment."  This decision holds that "salary"… Read More

In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, the Supreme Court held that in the employment context, Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 is to be strictly enforced, prohibiting enforcement of any noncompetition clause except in circumstances that are exempted by B & P Code 16601, 16602 or 16602.5.  However, this case holds that outside the employment context, and… Read More

Under Labor Code 92(f), a forum selection clause in an employment contract is invalid and unenforceable if the contract was "“entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017."  This decision holds that any modification of the employment contract after January 1, 2017 triggers the application of section 925, even if the modification did not affect the forum… Read More

Wastewater collection workers employed by the city to clean its sewers were not transportation workers governed by IWC Wage Order No. 7 even though their work required them to drive commercial vehicles to  clean and pump out sewers and transport refuse to collection locations.  So sanitation workers are not entitled to the meal and rest breaks mandated by Wage Order… Read More

When an employer’s no-fault absenteeism policy provides that an employee may clear absences that otherwise would count for purposes of disciplinary action by working (or being available to work) during a certain clearance period, the employer does not violate the California Family Rights Act (Gov. Code 12945.2) by extending the absence clearance period by the number of days the employee… Read More

Defendant, a vision insurance provider, terminated plaintiff, an optometrist, for using unapproved lens suppliers for defendant's patients.  Defendant's network doctor agreement provided for a two-step review process of disputes, including those over termination under these circumstances.  The first step was review by a three-member panel, the second step was arbitration.  This decision holds that this two-step process does not violate… Read More

Lab. Code 432.7 prohibits an employer from asking a job applicant to disclose any conviction that has been judicially dismissed and bars an employer from using any record of a dismissed conviction as a factor in the termination of employment.  Here, Premier hired plaintiff but several weeks later received a mistaken notice from the DMV saying that plaintiff had an… Read More

The NLRA did not preempt plaintiff employees' claims that Google's (and its emplyment agency's) policies forbidding employees from disclosing their wages and working conditions to others violated various Labor Code sections giving rise to plaintiff's PAGA suit.  The NLRA did not arguably protect or prohibit the nondisclosure policies insofar as they blocked disclosure to persons other than co-workers.  Moreover, California's… Read More

This decision holds that the US Supreme Court's later decision in Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters (2010) 561 U.S. 287, which expressly rejected the notion that labor arbitration disputes should be analyzed differently than commercial arbitration disputes undermined the reasoning of both Pacesetter Construction Co. v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Bd. (9th Cir. 1997) 116… Read More

When employees are compensated on a piece work basis, they must be separately compensated at either the minimum wage or higher contractual wage rate for the rest breaks to which they are legally entitled.  If the employees are allowed to take the rest breaks, but are not separately compensated for them, they can choose either, but not both, of the… Read More

Under Lab. Code 3366 civilian who assists any peace officer in active law enforcement service at the request of the peace officer's request is deemed to be a public employee as a matter of law and is entitled to workers compensation for any injury sustained while providing that assistance.  However, since workers compensation is available, the person assisting the police… Read More

CCSF wrongly terminated Morgado's employment as a police officer.  While he was no longer working for CCSF, Morgado was engaged as a broker, earning $181,000 in gross income.  This decision holds that Morgado's earnings as a broker must be offset agaisnt the damages he is awarded against CCSF whether for front or back pay.  Morgado is entitled only to be… Read More

Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer.  Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds.  The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement.  Held:  The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene.  The motion was… Read More

Joining the 1st Circuit, this decision holds that a worker can be "engaged in interstate commerce" and thus exempt from the FAA even though the worker, himself, does not cross state lines--so long as he is part of a distribution chain that extends across state lines.  Thus, Amazon's "last-mile" delivery drivers were exempt from the FAA.  Though they didn't cross… Read More

Effective Jan. 1, 2017, Lab. Code 1197.1 was amended to require that an employer post a bond in the amount of wages, liquidated damages and interest (but not civil penalties) assessed by the DLSE if the employer wishes to challenge the DLSE's wage order through a petition for administrative mandate in superior court.  This decision holds that the new bond… Read More