The case, World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. involved the situation where employees broke off from their former employer and started to work for a direct competitor. After leaving employment, the former employees made statements to former colleagues and customers in an attempt to have them join their new venture.
“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
Etheridge v. Reins International: Employees Who Do Not Provide Direct Table Service May Still Participate In Tip-Pools
Another California Court of appeal ruled on the issue of tip-pooling in California. In Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc., the court held that employees who do not provide “direct table service” may participate in tip-pools mandated by employers. (This holding confirms another recent appellate court’s ruling in Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s Of California
California Appellate Court Holds Postings On MySpace.com Are Not Private
The issue in Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., as stated by the court, is:
… whether an author who posts an article on myspace.com can state a cause of action for invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against a person who submits that article to a newspaper for republication.
The case
Court Holds Arbitration Agreement With Class Action Waiver And PAGA Waiver Is Unenforceable
Plaintiff, who was a trash truck driver for Athens Disposal Company, Inc., filed a class action against the company alleging violations of the Labor Code. Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action against Athens:
- Failing to pay overtime.
- Failing to provide meal periods and to pay an additional hour of compensation per workday to employees
Court Holds Employer’s Settlement Agreement With Individual Class Members Is Valid
In Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc. (February 26, 2009) the court of appeal held that employers may enter into settlement agreements with current and former employees over disputed wage claims. At issue in the case was whether the employer’s settlement and release agreements entered into with individual employees settling disputed overtime wages were valid
Delay In Transition To New Form I-9
Today, February 2, 2009, employers were supposed to transition to start using a new I-9 Form. However, Friday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services department made the following announcement:
USCIS Delays Rule Changing List of Documents Acceptable to Verify Employment Eligibility Reopens Public Comment Period for 30 days
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced
US Supreme Court Rules Title VII Anti-Retaliation Provision Applies To Statements Made During Investigations
Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report workplace race or gender discrimination. The issue examined by the US Supreme Court in Crawford v. Metro Government of Nashville, was whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an
On-Call Time – When Do Employers Have To Pay?
The question whether an employer is obligated to pay an employee for time on-call depends on interpretation of the term “hours worked.”
In a recent opinion regarding class action issues (Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, LTD), an appellate court offered an analysis of what would be considered “hours worked” and, therefore, entitling the employee
California Supreme Court Grants Review Of Another Meal And Rest Break Case: Brinkley v. Public Storage Inc.
Today, the California Supreme Court granted reivew of Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc.:
BRINKLEY v. PUBLIC STORAGE INC.
Case: S168806, Supreme Court of CaliforniaDate (YYYY-MM-DD): 2009-01-14
Event Description: Review granted/briefing deferred (8.512(d)(2) civil case)
Notes:
The petition for review is GRANTED. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of