Brewer v. Patel (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1017 made it clear that “on call” or “stand-by” time or waiting time is not compensable to property managers when they are waiting for a plumber or prospective renter to show up. Brewer v. Patel concerned a motel employee who was required to live on the premises, but only
Attorneys must disclose if they do not have malpractice insurance or risk not being paid! (Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.4.2 (formerly Rule 3-410)
The plaintiffs’ attorneys in a class action were denied attorney’s fees because some of the attorneys failed to disclose their lack of professional liability insurance to the client at the time the client retained the attorney. The Court of Appeal concluded the agreement was unenforceable because of failure to comply with former rule 3-410 and
Sexual Harassment Training Now Applies to Small Businesses
Employers with 5 or more employees (not including independent contractors), must provide at least 2 hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of sexual harassment training to all non-supervisory employees by January 1, 2020, and once every 2 years thereafter. An employer includes a person who regularly receives
Employers can now inquire into an applicant’s salary history (Labor Code §432.3, 1197.5)§
Prior law prohibiting an employer from asking or relying upon the applicant’s salary history is modified. Employers may now inquire into an applicant’s salary expectation for the position being applied for such as for seniority or merit. Sexual based salary decisions remain illegal. Labor Code §§ 432.3 and 1197.5. Effective January 1, 2018.
Cannot Require, Induce or Condition employment upon the signing of a release or non-disparagement agreement unless part of an existing dispute. (Govt. Code 12964.5
An employer cannot require the execution of a release or non-disparagement agreement in exchange for any condition of employment and broadened non-employee harassment. Changes to the laws concerning harassment, discrimination, etc. (Government Code § 12940, 12965, 12923, 12950.2, and 12964.5) broadened the definition of harassment to include any type of harassment, not merely sexual,
Professionalism Trumps Freedom of speech in the court room (which is a good thing) Bus. Code §6068(b)
The moral fiber of our society continues to degrade. The following is an attorney ethics issue and as a reminder attorney’s are held to a higher standard.
After a trial on a sexual harassment claim resulting in an $8,080 jury verdict, and a $7,000 costs award, Plaintiff’s counsel was upset he was not awarded the
Starbucks Must Pay for All Employee’s Work, even if just a drip of time! (Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829)
In Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829 the California Supreme Court answered a legal question sent to it from the Federal Court asking if the relevant wage order and statutes. The Court held that California does not adopt the federal FLSA permitting application of the (federal) de minimis rule when the employer required the employee to work “off the clock” several minutes per shift. The Court held that the state wage and hour rules do not permit the de minimis “Defense”. Read more …
Continue Reading Starbucks Must Pay for All Employee’s Work, even if just a drip of time! (Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829)
FEHA employee protections against adverse attorney fee/cost awards trump CCP 998
Arave v. Merrill Lynch (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 525 reinforces that in labor law employees have nothing to lose from suing. Plaintiff sued his employer under FEHA and lost. The defendant employer previously served a CCP 998 offer to settle of $100,000 which was rejected. The employee lost his case and the trial court awarded $83,000
Attorney Fees Denied to Employee who proved discrimination but did not win any monetary damages
In Bustos v. Global P.E.T. (2018) 19 CA5 th 558 an employee who proved discrimination as a motivating factor due to his disability (carpal tunnel syndrome vs. employer who said it was an economic lay off) lost an award of attorneys fees and costs under Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 CA4th 203
Employees Cannot Sue Temp Company then sue its Client Company! (Castillo v. Glenair 22 Cal.App.5th 348)
Finally, a common sense ruling.
After settling a class action lawsuit against temporary staffing agency, workers brought wage and hour putative class action raising identical claims against the client-company where they had been placed to work. The Court of Appeal held that:
1. agency and client-company were in privity for purposes of wage and hour