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
AI in Employment: Navigating the Legal Landscape with Lessons from I, Robot — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Constangy Clips Ep. 9 - The Penalty Playbook: 3 Pointers for Employee Discipline
The First District held that a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action may not recover litigation costs from the California Labor Workforce Development Agency when the LWDA did not participate in the litigation....more
The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. The Court responded to the request from the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions about Wage...more
Most California employers understand that they are required to provide suitable seating to employees when the nature of their work reasonably permits the use of seats. However, a California Court only recently opined on...more
In a recent opinion in Hill v. Walmart Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Walmart on Hill’s claim for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203, finding there was a good-faith dispute...more
On February 18, 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Jill LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Company, __ Cal. App. 5th __ (2022), that provides important guidance in two areas. First, the Court made clear that...more
On July 15, 2021, The Supreme Court of California published its opinion on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC and reversed the appellate court’s decision. Under California law, employers must provide employees with...more
The California Supreme Court on July 15, 2021, finally and conclusively resolved a long-unsettled question of California wage and hour law, likely to the detriment of most California employers. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood...more
In a unanimous opinion in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, the California Supreme Court ruled on the important practical question of whether the “regular rate of compensation” for calculating meal or rest break premium...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that will increase dramatically California employers’ potential liability for missed meal, rest, and recovery breaks. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,...more
Mattei v. Corporate Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., 2020 WL 3970367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) - Alyosha Mattei and three other lighting technicians, all members of Local 728 of the IATSE trade union, worked on the production of a...more
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more
Time Spent By Employees In Exit Searches Is Compensable - Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 2020 WL 727813 (Cal. S. Ct. 2020) - In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United...more
Employers must pay their California employees for time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of employee’s bags, packages, and other personal items, even if these items were...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued a decision holding that the time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches is compensable time that must be paid to employees. The decision...more
Last week, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that employee exit searches constituted compensable “hours worked” under California law. Under its “Employee Package and Bag Searches” policy, Apple...more
On February 13, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., holding that the time employees spend waiting for their bags and other personal belongings to be screened at the end of a...more
In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question...more
Employees must be paid for time spent waiting for, and undergoing, searches of their bags, packages and personal technology devices, the California Supreme Court ruled February 13, 2020, in Amanda Frlekin, et al. v Apple,...more
California wage laws have taken another alarming departure from federal standards. The highest state court recently held in Frlekin v. Apple that non-exempt employees must be paid for the time their bags and personal...more
- The California Supreme Court held that time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security inspections is compensable. - The decision rejects the holding by some lower courts that if employees could...more
Employees must be paid for time spent on their employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required searches of bags and other property voluntarily brought to work, according to the California Supreme Court’s ruling...more
California wage-hour law is tougher on employers than federal law. Last Thursday, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court unanimously held that employees must be paid for time spent in mandatory, onsite...more
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court just held that the time spent by employees waiting for and undergoing security checks of bags and other personal items is compensable time under California law, even when...more
Today, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that time spent by non-exempt employees undergoing mandatory bag or other security checks is compensable work time under California law. The decision stands...more