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.
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
Are on-duty meal periods valid in California?
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
Post-Brinker Decision Upholds Denial Of Class Certification: Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp.
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
Meal and Rest Break Compliance After Brinker v. Superior Court
Have you attended webinars and read new legal updates on the new Brinker decision and still uncertain on how this applies to your company? Realizing that employers need to take a more active step in ensuring they are in compliance with the new decision, I’ve developed a package that actually assists employers in drafting and
When Do Employers Have To Offer Meal And Rest Breaks? Analysis Of Brinker Corp. v. Superior Court
It has been a week now since the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. I’ve been getting a lot of questions, and have spoken on the topic a few times, and thought a couple of charts illustrating the Court’s holding would assist in understanding the decision. For
Brinker: California Supreme Court Clarifies Meal And Rest Break Requirements
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) was finally decided by the California Supreme Court. The decision was anxiously awaited by many due to its clarifications of California employment laws regarding the duties employers have regarding offering meal and rest breaks, and when the breaks need to be taken. The primary holding of the case
Brinker v. Superior Court Decision To Be Published Tomorrow
The California Supreme Court announced today that the opinion in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) will be published tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. The opinion will address many issues surrounding meal and rest break requirements under the California Labor Code, such as whether employers need to ensure or simply provide meal breaks, and when breaks should
Webinar – The Impact of Brinker: Understanding The Supreme Court’s Decision On Meal & Rest Breaks
Be among the first in California to understand the complete impact the monumental decision in Brinker v. Superior Court will have on employers. The Court’s decision is expected on April 12, and Anthony Zaller and Daniel Turner will analyze and discuss the impact of the decision. The webinar will explain the decision and what it