DOES CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRE TRUCKING COMPANIES TO PAY DRIVERS FOR OFF-THE-CLOCK LAYOVER TIME?

by Jennifer R. Lucas and Jonathan R. Babione As we saw a few days ago (1/6/2020) when the 9th Circuit handed down its opinion in Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., under certain circumstances, California law may require trucking companies to pay drivers for off-the-clock layover time.  The critical question is whether the employer exercises control over the drivers during those breaks. 

MGA Ruling Guides On Time Limits For Trade Secret Claims

by Stephen Moses On Oct. 29, the California Court of Appeal’s Second Appellate District, Division Eight, issued an opinion in MGA Entertainment Inc. v. Mattel Inc., upholding the trial court’s dismissal of MGA’s trade secret misappropriation claims against Mattel over the irreverent Bratz dolls made by MGA.[1]  MGA appealed the judgment of Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, who granted

Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Declared Illegal for Claims Arising Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Labor Code

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona Beginning January 1, 2020, California employers will be prohibited from requiring an employee or a job applicant to execute a mandatory arbitration agreement that waives a worker’s right to file a civil action in court for alleged violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and/or the Labor Code.  FEHA

EMPLOYERS HAVE CAUSE TO REJOICE: UNPAID WAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER PAGA

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona In a sweeping victory for employers, the California Supreme Court announced on September 12, 2019, in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson), that employees cannot recover unpaid wages in actions brought pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).  PAGA allows employees to commence representative actions to recover civil penalties on behalf

NINTH CIRCUIT WITHDRAWS ITS PRIOR DECISION ON RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF DYNAMEX CASE

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona On July 22, 2019, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit reversed its May 2, 2019 Vazquez et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International decision concluding that the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision — which overturned 30 years of case law allowing employers to classify their workers as independent contractors utilizing a multi-factor

NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT DYNAMEX APPLIES RETROACTIVELY

by Michelle R. Ferber and Connor M. Day On May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex should apply retroactively.  In Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l (9th Cir. 17-16096 5/2/210), the Ninth Circuit stated that California law calls for the retroactive application of Dynamex and that doing so is

CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT ENFORCES MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona In a victory for employers, a California Appellate Court determined that mandatory arbitration agreements are enforceable where an employee has been given notification that commencement or continued employment constitutes acceptance of the arbitration agreement. In Diaz v. Sohnen Enterprises, the employer announced at a company-wide meeting that it was instituting a mandatory

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ANNOUNCES NEW SALARY THRESHOLD FOR WHITE COLLAR EXEMPTIONS

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its highly anticipated salary overtime exemption rule, replacing the controversial Obama administration rule. Effective January 1, 2020, the new minimum salary threshold for workers to qualify as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) “white collar” exemption is $35,308 per year. The prior

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PROHIBITS EMPLOYEES FROM SUING PAYROLL COMPANIES FOR WAGE VIOLATIONS

by Michelle R. Ferber and Jennifer R. Lucas On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court decided the case of Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, which considered the novel question of whether an employee could sue her employer’s payroll company for wage and hour and other statutory violations.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s answer was that the payroll company was not liable