The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Does a U-Turn on Make-Whole Settlement Remedies, Part II
Constangy Clips Ep. 4 - 3 Things that Keep your Labor and Employment Lawyer Up at Night
California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week®
Clocking in with PilieroMazza: The Labor Equation: Pricing for Success
California Employment News: The Basics of Pay Exemptions
The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
#WorkforceWednesday: Whistleblower Regulations Increasing, #MeToo Bill Passes, Cyberfraud Risk Mitigation - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: Beware the Unfair Labor Practice - Not Just for Unions Anymore
What Should I Do If My Employer Failed to Pay Me Wages?
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
This month’s Friday Five explores recent ERISA disability benefit decisions involving key issues such as when attorney’s fees should be decided and factors used in determining venue transfer. It also explores retroactive...more
On January 18th, the California Supreme Court in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. ruled that defendants sued under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) may no longer strike unmanageable claims. PAGA claims are...more
In a December 13, 2021 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted a standard heretofore applied in federal court for determining joint employer status. In Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, four plaintiff employees...more
If there were ever a time for California employers to have in place meal period policies and timekeeping practices for non-exempt employees that are compliant with California law, now is the time. California law requires that...more
In Kim v. Reins, the Supreme Court was faced with the following question: Do employees lose standing to pursue a PAGA claim if they settle and dismiss their individual claims for Labor Code violations? To the surprise of many...more
Carroll v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 41 Cal. App. 5th 805, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (2019) - Summary: Each alleged reduction of monthly disability retirement benefit payments for discriminatory reasons was continuing violation...more
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified two questions of state law to the California Supreme Court: 1. Does the absence of a formal policy regarding meal and rest breaks violate...more
Employees of a Merry Maids home cleaning franchise brought a class action against the franchisee, the franchisor, its owner and affiliated entities claiming they were joint employers. A California federal district court...more
This month’s key employment law cases address the test for independent contractor status, the legality of an incentive compensation system, and personal liability for wage and hour violations....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Although an employee can prove discrimination by showing that an employer’s reasons for adverse action are pretextual, the Eleventh Circuit finds that an employee must do more than merely contest the...more
This month’s key employment law cases address pre-employment physicals, appeals from California Labor Commissioner awards, and background checks. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2018)...more
Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more
Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that California labor statutes and wage orders do not incorporate federal de minimis work exceptions. Yet, the Court declined to define when, if...more
This month’s key California employment law cases are two decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2018) - Summary: Amount in controversy for federal...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Based on the legal principle of res judicata, a prior class action settlement that released a staffing agency and its agents barred a subsequent class action against the staffing agency’s client....more
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision has upheld that successful plaintiffs are entitled to non-economic damages under Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. §§1421-1428 (the “Law”). In Bailets v. Pa. Turnpike...more
Synopsis: In an ADEA collective action alleging that a community college discriminated on the basis of age when it announced it would no longer employ any person receiving an annuity from the State Universities Retirement...more
Last month, the California Court of Appeal determined in Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corp., 2018 Cal.App. LEXIS 44 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 4, 2018)(certified for publication), that a former employee’s claim under the Private...more
On December 29, California’s Second Appellate District held that employees who settle and dismiss their individual wage claims may not assert claims under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of other...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Tipped workers who didn’t receive notice of the tip credit get a win under New York state minimum wage law in a case that echoes technical traps we have seen in FLSA decisions. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A Massachusetts federal court has found that reporting a rumored office romance and complaining about paramour favoritism can be protected activity that is protected by anti-retaliation laws. The court also...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal court in California recently held that a franchisor cannot be held liable for labor code claims where it did not exercise control directly, or through an actual agency relationship with the...more
On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued a critical decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2016 D.J. 12608 (2016), relating to California’s rest period obligations. The California Supreme Court...more