California law presumes that all employees are non-exempt employees, meaning that they are not exempt from the Labor Code requirements, such as overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, and minimum wage. Exempt employees are designated as such because they are “exempt” from certain wage and hour requirements due to their duties and pay. However, the
With attention on the DOL’s salary increase required to meet the white collar exemptions, it is important for employers to remember that this is only one-half of the test to qualify for as an exempt employee. The law also requires that the employee perform more than 50% of their time performing exempt duties. For
The DOL’s Final Rule was issued this week (see my previous article for the details), and we have had a few days to digest the new rules. Now employers need to start putting together a plan to ensure compliance with the federal rules, and take time to ensure they are also complying with
I apologize for the long post in advance, but I’ve been receiving many questions about exempt vs. non-exempt classification of employees lately. This article is the first in a series of articles to help employers tread through this technical area, hopefully in a manner that makes it at least somewhat easier for employers to understand.
With Governor Brown’s signing of the bill raising California’s minimum wage to $10.00 per hour by January 2016, there are a few new considerations this triggers for California employers. This quick video discusses the increase in guaranteed salary employers must pay in order to for employees to qualify as exempt.
The Department of Labor issued its first “interpretation” letter (a change in policy by the DOL that replaces its opinion letters previously issued) by examining whether or not mortgage loan officers meet the administrative exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL concluded that mortgage loan officer do not meet the exemption, and
The case Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc.
(RHI) was brought by recruiters alleging that RHI failed to comply with Labor Code provisions pertaining to overtime compensation, commissions, meal periods, itemized wage statements, and unfair competition (under Business and Professions Code section 17200).
As defenses, RHI argued that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they all