Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Labor & Employment

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

A uniform policy alone does not establish the predominance of common issues if it is not a means of establishing class-wide liability; so, here, the employer could defeat class certification with evidence that many of its crews did not follow its uniform break policy. Read More

An owner and president of a restaurant corporation could be held liable for civil penalties for violating wage and hour laws since he supervised the corporation's payment practices that violated the laws. Read More

California statute extending state wage laws governing public works to cover delivery drivers of ready-mix concrete is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and does not violate concrete companies’ equal protection rights. Read More

First Amendment’s ministerial exception barred seminary dean-plaintiff’s claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not breach of contract, since the latter is a matter of compliance with a faculty handbook and hence does not turn on an ecclesiastical inquiry or excessively entangle the court in religious matters. Read More

Since plaintiff restaurant workers alleged their employers took the tip credit for unrelated untipped work hours and for related untipped work exceeding 20% of their work time, they stated viable claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Read More

Under the 2008 amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is no longer necessary for an employee to show that his perceived disability limited or was perceived to limit a major life activity in order to show evidence of “disability”; all that the employee need plead or prove is that the employer regarded him as physically or mentally impaired. Read More

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt the California Labor Commissioner from examining whether truck drivers are independent contractors or employees entitled to the benefit of California's wage and hour laws. Read More

To appeal from the Labor Commissioner's ruling on an employee’s wage claim, the employer must post a bond in the amount of the award; failure to do so results in dismissal of the appeal unless the employer is indigent. Read More

An employer must give an employee a meal break if the shift is five hours or longer, but if the total work period is not more than six hours, the employer and employee may waive this requirement by mutual agreement, such as through a clear and unmistakable collective bargaining agreement. Read More

An employee cannot state a claim against his employer based on a theory of “receiving stolen property” on the basis that the employer “received” the employee's labor without paying the agreed price for it.  Read More

A Washington state law requiring an employer to allow an employee to reschedule accrued vacation time to care for the medical needs of close relatives is not pre-empted by the federal Railway Labor Act, since that preemption extends only far enough to protect the role of labor arbitration in resolving disputes over collective bargaining agreements—which was not at issue in… Read More

California labor laws do not recognize the federal de minimis doctrine; hence, Starbucks's practice of requiring store managers to work without pay several minutes a day after clocking out was illegal. Read More

Taco Bell’s policy allowing employees to buy discounted meals to eat during their meal breaks—but only if they ate the discounted meal on the premises—did not violate California rule that employees be relieved of all work duties and employer control during meal breaks. Read More

1 16 17 18 19 20 24