California courts recently issued two guiding decisions relating to COVID-19:
In Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 526, the Court of Appeal held that a government mandate to work from...more
The California Supreme Court published its decision in Gustavo Naranjo et al., v. Spectrum Security Services holding that employers who fail to pay for meal or rest break premiums, may also be responsible for waiting time and...more
In another detrimental decision for employers, that has retroactive application, the California Supreme Court just complicated calculation of premium pay owed for non-compliant breaks – holding it must include all...more
Once in a while, the California Supreme Court makes a ruling which declares unlawful an employment practice previously perceived as lawful. Today, the California Supreme Court in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC held that...more
On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that the ABC Test, as articulated in Dynamex, applies retroactively to claims under California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders....more
The California Supreme Court clarified in a highly anticipated decision, that time spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory exit searches of personal items is considered compensable time under California’s Wage Orders....more
2/18/2020
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Apple ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Class Action ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
Minimum Wage ,
Over-Time ,
Personal Property ,
Retail Workers ,
Retailers ,
Security Checks ,
Summary Judgment ,
Wage and Hour
De minimis is a Latin phrase that refers to something of little importance, or very irrelevant. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) recognizes that some employee duties are so small, or take such little time, that...more