Workplace Sexual Assault and Third-Party Risk: What’s the Tea in L&E?
Daily Compliance News: August 11, 2025, The Boss Doesn’t Work Edition
Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Off the Clock, On the Radar: Managing Off-Duty Conduct and Workplace Impact
Daily Compliance News: July 22, 2025, The I-9 Hell Edition
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
(Podcast) California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
Essential Steps to Sell Your Business
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - The Law as a Force for Change
Strategic HR Insights with Kelly Mitchell
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 41: Employment & Labor Law Issues for Construction Companies with Bridget Blinn-Spears of Maynard Nexsen
Stumbling Your Way Into a Union: Key Advice for Employers: What’s the Tea in L&E?
California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
(Podcast) California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
Key Points: No formal liability for payment of work-related medical expenses is triggered on the part of the employer/insurer until such expenses are properly submitted in accordance with the terms and provisions of the...more
The recent Barahona v. ABM Janitorial Services (2024) 53 CWCR 4, decision sheds light on a common but often misunderstood issue in California workers’ compensation: how liability is shared among multiple employers and...more
On July 11, 2023, the California Court of Appeal in Thai v. IBM held that whether an employer is obligated to reimburse expenses incurred by an employee working from home turns on whether the expenses were a direct...more
On June 13, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Johnson v. WinCo Foods Holdings, Inc, et al. that class members who were not yet employed by WinCo were not entitled to compensation for the time required to take a...more
A federal appeals court recently affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of WinCo Foods in a class action alleging that WinCo should have reimbursed successful job applicants for the time and travel expenses they...more
This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer’s per diem expense reimbursement payments functioned as compensation for work rather than business expense reimbursements. As a result, the employer was...more
In Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., a California Court of Appeal ruled that California’s business expense reimbursement law does not require an employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes...more
Now that sports betting has been legalized by the Supreme Court, I might want to consider laying some action on an upcoming game, because I am on fire with my recent predictions. In a blog post from last week, I correctly...more
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that expert witness fees are not recoverable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Gortat v. Capala Brothers, Inc., No. 14-3304-cv (July 29, 2015), the Second Circuit...more
In August 2014, the California State Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Division 2) decided in Cochran v. Schawan's Home Service that employers were responsible for reimbursing employees for the business use of personal cell...more
The California Supreme Court has denied a petition to review Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, No. B247160 (August 12, 2014). As a result of the...more
The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. was simple. When employees must use their personal cell phones for work, California law requires employers to reimburse them,...more
In Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service Inc., the California Court of Appeals posed the following question: "Does an employer always have to reimburse an employee for the reasonable expense of the mandatory use of a personal cell...more
In a ruling that may spawn a wave of California employment-related class action litigation, a California Court of Appeal has ruled that employers must always reimburse employees for “some reasonable percentage” of their cell...more
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) published a decision that could impact many employers in California. The threshold question at issue in the case was whether an employer...more
Labor Code section 2802 requires an employer to reimburse an employee who uses a personal cell phone for work-related calls, according to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District....more