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

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

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

The California Supreme Court changed the test to determine what is an independent contractor vs. employee to a new “ABC” test.  The 2nd prong, is the tough one for employers.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. involved a trucking company which changed its policy from classifying drivers as employees to independent contractors.  The Court applied a

New Labor Code Section 218.17 (AB 1701) makes a general contractor jointly liable for the unpaid wages, fringe benefits, or other benefit payments or contributions of a subcontractor (at any tier).

Labor Code 218.7 provides “down-the-chain protection” to a sub-contractor’s employees if they are  misclassified as as independent contractors or not paid. The bill applies

smoke-free-workplaceUnder Lab C §6404.5, no employer may knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person may engage in, smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment.  Does this apply to vaping?  Why not?  The potential penalties for violations include a fine of up to $500 for each violation for repeat offenders. Lab C §6404.5(j), and maybe worse from a creative PI lawyer!
Continue Reading

equal pay equal workLabor Code §1197.5. bars employers from paying employees less than other employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work regardless of their job titles or the location where they work.  Current law prohibits an employer from paying an employee less than employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs which require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. This law prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.
Continue Reading

gonzalezcheerleader.jpg_r900x493Yaaay! Lets hear it for the lawyers!  Cheerleaders are not classified as employees.  Labor Code 2754.  Note, this only helps California based team cheerleaders.  Assembly Women Lorena Gonzalez, was the sponger of this bill.  Lorena was a Stanford cheerleader, she is in the photo, second from the left.  She was a smart and hot cheerleader!