California Employment News: CA Local Minimum Wage Updates
Non-Compete Compliance in 2025: State Trends and Employer Strategies
FTC and Florida Focus on Non-Competes, SCOTUS to Rule on Pension Withdrawal Liability - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Multijurisdictional Employers, P2: 2025 State-by-State Updates on Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agts
Constangy Clips Ep. 11 - Summer Interns and Short-Term Workers: 3 Tips for Managing Seasonal Hires
Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Ampliación del fuero de paternidad
Weed in the Workplace: What’s the Tea in L&E?
Navigating Contractor vs. Employee Classification
(Podcast) California Employment News: Back to the Basics of Employee Pay Days
California Employment News: Back to the Basics of Employee Pay Days
Multijurisdictional Employers, Part 1: Independent Contractors vs. Employees
Non-Competes Eased, Anti-DEI Rule Blocked, Contractor Rule in Limbo - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
(Podcast) California Employment News: Fair Chance Act – A Brief Overview of Employment Criminal Background Checks
California Employment News: Fair Chance Act – A Brief Overview of Employment Criminal Background Checks
Legal and Practical Considerations of Adapting Employment Contracts
Update on the State of Non-compete Restrictions (LaborSpeak)
#WorkforceWednesday®: Artificial Intelligence Regulations for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
(Podcast) California Employment News: Breaking Down Los Angeles’ Fair Work Week Ordinance
California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
Tips are a trending topic in the news. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, signed into law on July 4, 2025, created a new federal income deduction for tip earnings which raised awareness around tips. Now, California has passed...more
In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...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
Seyfarth Synopsis: California Labor Code section 1102.5 protects employees who disclose what they believe to be violations of the law. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that such disclosures are protected even if the...more
Earlier this week, the California Court of Appeal reached a decision that may ease employers’ worries when presented with a wage and hour lawsuit. California’s plaintiff-friendly laws provide avenues for plaintiffs to...more
In 2019, California enacted numerous labor and employment laws. Unless otherwise noted, each of the laws listed below is effective on Jan. 1, 2020. This Holland & Knight alert highlights selected and significant new laws, as...more
As 2019 draws to a close, employers in California have a busy new year ahead of them with expanded legal obligations, including significant new legislation regarding independent contractor status and mandatory arbitration...more
The filing of class actions against California employers for meal and rest break violations remain as prevalent as ever, but the California Courts of Appeal have recently issued two rulings that may help employer-defendants....more
Court Upholds Whistleblower Verdicts In Favor Of Fired Parking Ticket Hearing Examiners - Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. App. 5th 384 (2019) - Todd Hawkins and Hyung Kim were terminated from their jobs as...more
In ZB, N.A., and Zions Bancorporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. S246711, __ Cal. 5th __, 2019 WL 4309684 (Cal. 2019) (ZB), the California Supreme Court held on Sept. 12, 2019, that California's Labor Code...more
In a significant victory for California employers who use arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court ruled (ZB, N.A. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, S246711 (September 12, 2019)) that the recovery of...more
Yesterday September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court held that private litigants may not recover unpaid wages under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson) (Cal....more
In this episode of the Working Wise Podcast Series, K&L Gates Los Angeles Associate Saman Rejali provides an overview of tips and common mistakes to avoid for employers doing business in California....more
California employers cannot require employees to routinely work — even for just minutes — off-the-clock without compensation, according to the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Troester v. Starbucks. ...more
Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking decision that severely limits employers’ ability to rely on the ‘de minimis’ doctrine as a defense to not paying for minimal increments of off-the-clock...more
The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...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
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court rejected the federal de minimis doctrine, making clear that in any instance in which employees perform “minutes of work,” before or after their shifts, that time must...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Starbucks employee seeking compensation for time spent closing the store after clocking out. This decision in Troester v. Starbucks may limit the ability of...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (S234969) on whether California wage and hour law recognizes the de minimis doctrine established by the...more
• In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court on July 26, 2018, resoundingly rejected the de minimis doctrine commonly applied under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to claims for unpaid...more