As February ends, there are many developments on the employment legal front. Here are five prevalent employment issues for California and across the U.S.:
1. California Supreme Court holds employers may not round time entries for meal periods.
On February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that employers may not engage in time rounding
Are there are any “predictive scheduling” requirements under California law? Can California employers change schedules for employees without notice? These are some of the questions I’ve dealt with lately about scheduling requirements in California. This Friday’s Five reviews five issues California employers should understand about regulations pertaining to setting and changing schedules under California law:
Here are five employment law and non-employment law issues that had my attention this week:
1. Will the future workforce be paid daily?
The Wall Street Journal’s article, “The Wait for Payday Doesn’t Have to Be So Long” raises some interesting issues about efforts to lower the time it takes for employees to
Welcome to another Friday’s Five video. In this video I discuss five things every California employer needs to know about meal and rest breaks. The items consists of a some reminders, but also new court decisions issued in December 2016 and the first quarter of 2017. This is always a topic employers need to
Often the threat of the plaintiff’s potential ability to recover attorney’s fees is greater than the actual damages that they can prove. This can be frustrating for employers defending wage and hour claims, in both the individual and class action context. Indeed, an employer must understand the potential damages and exposure of fees they may
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
Generally, employees have a privacy expectation in their personnel files, contact information, and work related information. However, this expectation of privacy is not limitless, especially when the employee publically airs his or her work experiences on social media sites for the public to see. Courts have held that employees can waive this right to privacy
An employer is not required to allow employees to use medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation under California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA). The California Supreme Court held that it is not a violation of California law for an employer to terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana, even though the employee was prescribed
The judgment against the defendant for $1,347,000 in Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc.
should be a good reminder for companies to have well drafted executive agreements. Faigin worked as General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer for Fremont General, a parent corporation. Defendant had various subsidiary companies that Faigin also worked for during his employment.
Given the increasing mobility of the workforce, the issue of which state’s laws apply to a traveling employee is becoming more and more common. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the California Supreme Court held that California-based employers must pay non-resident employees working in California according to the California’s overtime laws. That means that a