Understanding the New Overtime Tax Policies in the Big Beautiful Bill
Is the Four-Day Workweek Really a Benefit? What’s the Tea in L&E?
Constangy Clips Ep. 11 - Summer Interns and Short-Term Workers: 3 Tips for Managing Seasonal Hires
Daily Compliance News: May 15, 2025, The Downfall in Davos Edition
Daily Compliance News: May 14, 2025, The Widened Whistleblower Program Edition
California Employment News: Back to the Basics of Employee Pay Days
The Evolution of Equal Pay: Lessons From 9 to 5 — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Insider Strategies for Wage and Hour Compliance Success: One-on-One with Paul DeCamp
California Employment News: Breaking Down Los Angeles’ Fair Work Week Ordinance
Keeping Up with Exemption Threshold Regulations
Are Overtime Wages and Tips Exempt From Income Tax? What Employers Need to Know to Prepare
Excessive Compensation: What to do when the co-owners of your business pay themselves excessively
California Employment News: Document Checklist for Departing Employees
OK at Work: Navigating Snow Days, Office Closures, and Remote Work Planning
Employment Law Now VIII-157 - Top 5 L&E Issues to Watch in 2025
Updated Leave Laws Employers Need to be Aware of for 2025
Constangy Clips Ep. 6 - Federal Court Blocks DOL Rule: What Employers Need to Know
Employment Law Update: Staying Compliant in 2025
Holiday Headaches: Avoiding Legal Risks with PTO, Overtime, and Workplace Festivities
(Podcast) California Employment News – Key Employment Law Updates: What’s Changing in 2025
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
On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeals held that prospective written meal period waivers for shifts between five and six hours are lawful, rejecting the argument that meal period waivers must be signed for each...more
The California Labor Code generally requires that employers provide meal periods to non-exempt employees working more than five hours. However, the Labor Code provides that meal periods can be waived by agreement of the...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
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
The standards for “suitable seating” cases in California were set by the California Supreme Court’s landmark 2016 decision of Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Ever since this decision was handed down, employers and employee...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