The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California Supreme Court to clarify three 
questions pertaining to California’s little known, and very rarely litigated, laws regarding a day of rest every seven days. The case is Mendoza v. Nordstrom. The California Supreme Court’s clarification could result in a new-found focus on these laws
Five exempt employee classifications all California employers should understand
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.
Five errors that make defending an employment lawsuit harder
In litigation, the following five issues make defending an employment lawsuit much more difficult. 
1. No documentation.
No matter what type of employment litigation is at issue – wage and hour claims, leave issues, or harassment claims – the amount of documentation an employer has dramatically increases the odds of prevailing in litigation. I would
Five New Year’s resolutions for California employers in 2015
Happy New Year. I started the Friday’s Five articles at the beginning of last summer, and 
the interest in the articles has been astounding, so I appreciate everyone who has read them and provided comments and feedback. If you have any topics you would like me to address, please let me know. With that
Top five employment law class action claims for California employers in 2014
Let me start with the lawyer’s disclaimer up-front: this Friday’s Five list has no scientific or statistical backing whatsoever, I generated it based on the cases I’ve been litigating in 2014. My experience may be (and probably is) skewed a bit, but nevertheless California employers should pay attention to the following areas of potential litigation.
Steps California employers should take to comply with employment law changes in 2015 – part one
The laws passed in 2014 added some new posting requirements and resulted in the need to 
revise some of the notices California employers are required to provide to employees. This Friday’s Five Best Practices article sets out five items California employers should review before the start of 2015:
1. Review newly published frequently asked questions
Five lessons for employers from new meal break decision: In re Walgreen Co. Cases
An appellate court upheld a trial court’s denial of class certification in a case brought against 
Walgreens. The appellate court’s decision provides a few good lessons for employers defending class action allegations.
1. Meal break cases are harder to certify as class actions after the Brinker decision.
The California Supreme Court held in Brinker Restaurant
Friday’s Five: Five items employers need to understand about automobile and mileage reimbursement under California law
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
Friday’s Five: Five areas of liability facing California employers
1. Meal and rest breaks.
If you did not know of this exposure already existed in California, can I recommend some reading here, here and here? 
2. Exempt vs. non-exempt classification of employees.
The default under California law is that every employee is entitled to overtime pay at a rate of time and
Friday’s Five: Five California Labor Code provisions employees cannot waive
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