In a recent decision, Ramirez v. ISB Mehta Corp., a restaurant successfully defended a lawsuit filed by a former manager claiming that he was misclassified as an exempt employee. While the case is not officially published, it provides a few good lessons for restaurant operators’ classification of their employees. This Friday’s Five focuses on
California proposed immigration bill imposes steep fines for employers who cooperate with federal immigration requests
Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill – AB 450 – that would put employers between the federal government and the state of California in the immigration debate. Basically, the bill imposes penalties on employers who cooperate or do not notify the state of federal immigration actions taking place at their locations. As set
Five action items to conduct an appropriate harassment investigation
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about an employer’s obligations to conduct effective investigations into harassment claims. I was 
side tracked since that post, and promised to write about how employers should conduct the investigations. This Friday’s Five lists five action items employers should utilize when conducting harassment investigations:
1. Selecting the investigator
Commissioned sales employees must be compensated separately for rest breaks – Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture
This week, in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC, a California appellate court issued a decision explaining employer’s obigations to separately compensate employees paid on a commission basis for rest breaks.
Plaintiffs worked as sales associates for Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, a retail furniture company doing business in California as Ashley Furniture HomeStores. Stoneledge paid the
Allegations made from Uber employee reminds CA employers about their obligations to conduct effective investigations into harassment claims
A former employee at Uber has made news this week in claiming that she was subjected to sexual 
harassment while working at Uber, and her complaints were not satisfactorily resolved. I don’t want to get into the judgment of who was possibly right or wrong in this case, but use it as a good
Why you should attend jury duty (and do it with a smile)
In this Friday’s Five, I discuss why people should be more open to attending jury duty. I sat for jury duty this week, but was dismissed after vior dire. I’ve served on two juries prior to this, and maybe it is the litigator in me, but I’ve found the process fascinating. Also, I’m tired
Ignoring these legal notices can create liability for California employers
Happy Friday! This Friday’s Five provides five legal requests and/or notices that, if ignored, can create huge liability for a California employer.
1. Requests for personnel records and time records
There are many different Labor Code provisions that obligate the employer to provide current and former employees with a copy of their personnel files and/or
Friday’s Five: When employers can be liable for supervisor’s conduct
Employers are strictly liable for the actions of its supervisors, managers or agents under the doctrine 
of respondeat superior. Here are five key concepts employers must understand about the liability that could be created by managerial employees.
1. Respondeat superior holds employers automatically liable for actions by managers
The respondeat superior doctrine provides that “an
Understanding joint employer liability
Joint employer liability can arise in many different contexts, such as when using staffing agencies, management companies, or in even in the franchise context. Companies must understand the factors a court could apply in determining if a potential joint employer relationship exists between the two entities to avoid being potentially liable for employment lawsuits filed
California Supreme Court closes out 2016 with monumental ruling on employer’s obligations to provide rest periods
In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on employer’s obligations to permit employees to take “off-duty” rest periods. The Court’s ruling ends 2016 with a major ruling on issues surrounding rest periods under California law.
The plaintiffs worked as security guards for defendant ABM. The employer required