Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! I hope everyone is spending some quality time with family members. In part to give me a bit of a break from creating entirely new content, this holiday edition of Friday’s Five is five recent videos from my YouTube channel:
1. Holiday leave policies:
2. Understanding the mediation process:
Last Sunday was the deadline for Governor Brown to sign any new bills into law, and I was fielding a lot of questions about the bills that were signed by the Governor (as well as the bills that were vetoed) this week. So, I thought it would be appropriate for this Friday’s Five to be
California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that employees are entitled to receive premium wages in the form of one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for a missed meal or rest break.
An employee who works more than three and one-half hours per day must be permitted to take a
Happy New Year! This Friday’s Five consists of five new video’s taken from a recent presentation I conducted on new employment laws facing California employers in 2016. Wishing everyone the best in 2016.
2016 Update: California’s new equal pay protections:
2016 Update: Meal and rest break considerations:
2016 Update: Minimum wage increases state
You’ve set up a successful company and begin hiring employees. To be a successful operator in California, a company’s management needs to be familiar with the critical legal concepts in order to successfully navigate California’s complex employment laws. You never wanted to go to law school, but time to hit the, ahem, books (or the
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
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.
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
As many California employers know, ignoring or failing to comply with the requirements of providing meal and rest breaks in California can create huge liability for companies. California law does allow for “on-duty” meal periods, whereby the employee takes a meal break, but while still working. Employers sometimes view this exception as an easy alternative
In Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp., the California Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s determination that the plaintiffs could not maintain a class action for proposed meal period class given the holding by the California Supreme Court in Brinker v. Superior Court (click here for additional information on the Brinker ruling