The recent settlement creating a $228 million fund by Federal Express in a multistate class action brought in 2005 alleging that drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. However, the parties are encountering some reluctance from the court in obtaining court approval of the settled. This case is a good example that entering into a settlement
This week, a federal court in northern California certified portions of a class action 
brought by Uber drivers who worked in California since 2009 (click here for the decision [PDF]). Over 160,000 drivers have worked for Uber in California during this time period, and while the case is making a lot of news,
Earlier this week Uber appealed a California Labor Commissioner ruling against it holding that a driver was misclassified as an independent contractor. In this video, I briefly discuss the ruling and the lesson it holds for employers.
Misclassification of employees as independent contractors can carry many damages and penalties. For example, Sections 226.8 and
Colin Cochran brought a putative class action against his employers, Schwan’s Home Service, on behalf of 1,500 customer service managers who were not reimbursed for expenses pertaining to the work-related use of their personal cell phones. He alleged causes of action for violation of Labor Code section 2802; unfair business practices under Business and Professions
In my last post, I wrote about what steps employers should talk to comply with the new employment laws for 2015. This post discusses more generally what employers should audit on a yearly basis. And with the year coming to a close, now is a great time to review these five items:
1. Expense reimbursement
Expense reimbursement may seem like a small issue in comparison with the other areas of 
liability facing California employers, but the exposure for not appropriately reimbursing employees can be substantial. In Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three
Here is a list of five rights provided to employees under the California Labor 
Code that the employee may not waive by agreement with an employer.
1. Minimum wage
Labor Code Section 1194 provides a private right of action to enforce violations of minimum wage and overtime laws. That statute clearly voids any agreement between
My firm is conducting a webinar on Thursday June 19, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. for a mid-year update on emerging employment law issues and the newly enacted LLC statute effecting most California Limited Liability Companies.
For more information and to register, please complete the form below:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1LU6GudLKMnb4yt4qpvQTagUj9OlxJmaR13JQs79urKI/viewform?embedded=true
Governor Brown signed a number of new employment laws that take effect in January 2012. During this webinar, we will cover the new obligations facing employers under these recently enacted employment laws as well as the proper steps employers should take to comply with them. The discussion will also cover the recent oral argument
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