Lorem Ipsum

Employer Must Reimburse Reasonable Percentage of Employee’s Cell Phone Bill

Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Services, Inc.: Employer Must Reimburse Reasonable Percentage of Employee’s Cell Phone Bill

Date: September 26th, 2014 by Laura C. Hess No Comments

On August 12, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued a sweeping opinion in Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Services, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137. The Court discussed the issue of whether an employer must reimburse an employee for the reasonable expense of mandatory use of a personal cell phone for work purposes, or whether the reimbursement obligation is limited to … Read More

California's Historic Adoption of Paid Sick Leave - AB 1522

California’s Historic Adoption of Paid Sick Leave – AB 1522

Date: September 11th, 2014 by Allyson K. Thompson No Comments

On September 10, 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1522 otherwise known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.

Specifically, the Act amends Labor Code § 2810.5 to provide that an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for 30-days or more within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick … Read More

Supreme Court Kring and Chung

The California Supreme Court Adds Another Hurdle For Employees Seeking Class Certification

Date: September 9th, 2014 by Alis M. Moon No Comments

On May 29, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, making clear that before a court can certify a class action, it should require the plaintiff to have a trial plan addressing manageability of the class claims.

The class in Duran was a group of … Read More

supreme2

Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Employers in Regards to Class Action Waivers, But Not In Regards to PAGA Claims

Date: July 10th, 2014 by Allyson K. Thompson No Comments

On June 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014 WL 2808963). Long awaited is an understatement, as the underlying case was filed in 2006. The issue of whether class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable has been ruled on differently by several courts over the past … Read More

supreme

Privacy Rights and the Public Records Act

Date: July 10th, 2014 by Kyle D. Kring No Comments

Competing interests of transparency in government and elected officials and government employees’ right to privacy has stirred up a debate throughout California. A recent California appellate court ruled that government officials and employees’ private communications sent on personal devices and not stored on public servers are not subject to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). City of San Jose v. Read More

marijuana

No Duty to Reasonably Accommodate Employees for Medical Marijuana Use

Date: July 8th, 2014 by Kyle D. Kring No Comments

The increased decriminalization of marijuana use raises questions of whether employers are required to reasonably accommodate employees who use it for medical reasons, and whether they can terminate the employee for failing a drug test. As prudent employers, it is always a good idea to contemplate how the change in law will affect the workplace. Although sixteen states have legalized … Read More

beware

Beware: A Snazzy Job Title Does Not Automatically Make an Employee Exempt

Date: June 5th, 2014 by Allyson K. Thompson No Comments

Many unwary employers fall into the trap of giving an employee the title of “Manager” or “Supervisor” only to find out that in fact the employee was misclassified. One of the most common mistakes an employer can make is to assume that a job title alone makes an employee “exempt” versus being “non-exempt.”

Amongst other factors, a truly exempt employee … Read More

atwill

She Is An At-Will Employee – I Can Fire Her, Right?

Date: May 30th, 2014 by Laura C. Hess No Comments

This is a situation we see fairly often. The employer has an employee that it wants to terminate. The employer says, “I don’t have to have a reason. I can fire her any time, she’s an at-will employee!” What could possibly go wrong?

Well, a lot of things. It is true that the rule in California is that employment relationships … Read More

emp-23

Employer May Recover Attorney Fees Under FEHA Where Plaintiff’s Evidence of Discrimination is Solely Speculation

Date: March 24th, 2014 by Laura C. Hess No Comments

In the recent case of Robert v. Stanford Univ., No. H037514, 2014 WL 793112 (Cal. Ct. App. February 25, 2014), plaintiff brought an action against his former employer for discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA.) He alleged that he was terminated because of his ancestry, American Indian. At trial, defendant presented evidence that plaintiff was … Read More

jobs-sexual-harassment

Firing Both Parties Involved in the Sexual Harassment Complaint is Not a Solution

Date: February 20th, 2014 by Laura C. Hess No Comments

A recent California court decision, Mendoza v. Western Medical Center Santa Ana, (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1334, highlights the mistakes an employer can make when handling a sexual harassment complaint.

Employers always need to do a good faith investigation, even if the allegations appear to be “he said/she said.” When employers terminate a long-term, well-performing employee after he or she … Read More