In Sullivan, et. al. v. Oracle Corporation, the California Supreme Court ruled on whether California’s overtime laws apply to out-of-state residents who perform work in California. The Court held that California’s interests in protecting all workers who perform work within the state are sufficient enough to require that California based employers must pay all
California Employment Law Podcast – AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion Decision On Class Action Waivers And Arbitration Agreements
You may also subscribe to the California Employment Law Podcast through iTunes by clicking here.
Employees Entitled Up To Two Hours Of Premium Pay For Missed Meal and Rest Breaks Per Day – UPS v. Superior Court
California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that employees are entitled to receive premium payment in the form of one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for a missed meal or rest break. As the appellate court admitted in UPS v. Superior Court, this Labor Code provision is amenable to
Court Affirms Denial Of Class Certification In Security Guard Meal and Rest Break Case
In Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., Plaintiffs brought a case on behalf of about 4,000 current and former security guards of Boyd & Associates, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted that all guards had to sign an agreement to take on-duty meal periods and that they never took an uninterrupted, off-duty meal break. They also asserted
What Labor Code requirements can employees waive?
It may come as a surprise to many employers that employees cannot waive, or enter into contracts
contrary to many of California’s Labor Code requirements. The rationale for this is pretty basic: if employees could waive the rights given to them under the Labor Code, every employer would simply require the employee to waive the
No Break In Worker Suits
I was quoted in this month’s California Lawyer magazine regarding the steady persistence of wage and hour lawsuits here in California – even during these difficult economic times. The article, No Break In Worker Suits, can be read here.
Lower Court’s Ruling In Brinker v. Hohnbaum
The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Appellate Court’s opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. Hohnbaum, et al. (July 22, 2008) is the opinion that was appealed to the California Supreme Court. The case is one of the first California state appellate court to rule on the parameters of employers’ duties under the California Labor
CA Supreme Court denies review in Starbucks tip pooling case
The California Supreme Court denied review of a lower appellate cou
rt decision in the class action of Chau v. Starbucks. The issue in the case is whether store managers, who as part of their duties also served customers, could share in the tips which were left for all servers. The trial court took
$86 Million Verdict Against Starbucks Overturned: Court Holds That Shift Supervisors May Share In “Tip Apportionment” Arrangements
The $86 million trial award against Starbucks for violation of California Labor Code provisions on tips was overturned by a California appellate court (Chau v. Starbucks). The case was initiated by Jou Chau who was a former Starbucks barista. He brought a class action against Starbucks alleging that the company’s policy permitting shift supervisors
“Direct Table Service” Is Not Required For Employees Participating In Tip Pools: Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s
California restaurateurs received a huge victory from the Second District appellate court’s ruling in Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s Of California, Inc. The lawsuit against Dave & Buster’s alleged that its tip pool policy violated California law in that it required employees to tip out bartenders who did not provide "direct table service." The