http://www.elinfonet.com/starticles/5 Articles discussing workplace law in California. Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:07:17 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2303 Article: 2303 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In March a California court awarded more than $105 million to Starbucks baristas due to the company's practice of permitting supervisors to share the tips. The case is significant to all California employers that have tip-sharing arrangements. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2302 Article: 2302 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) California law sets out basic overtime requirements for non-exempt employees in California. Among other things, the law requires an employer to pay an employee time and one-half of the employee's regular rate of pay for both 1) more than 8 hours of work in one workday, and2) more than 40 hours of work in any workweek. A double time premium is required for hours in excess of 12 in a work day, or in excess of 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2300 Article: 2300 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, the California Supreme Court held that individual officers, directors and shareholders of a corporation have no personal liability to the corporation’s employees for unpaid overtime. Following Reynolds, the California Court of Appeal recently held in Bradstreet v. Wong (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1440, that individual owners, officers and managers of three closely-held corporations could not be held personally liable for the corporation’s failure to pay owed wages to employees or for related California Labor Code violations. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2299 Article: 2299 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Employers sued in California wage and hour class actions are all too familiar with the State’s “multiplier effect.” What is the California “multiplier effect,” you ask? Simply put, it is a small wage payment violation (e.g., for non-payment of overtime hours or off-the-clock work), that can trigger a range of penalties under the California Labor Code far exceeding the value of the original unpaid wage amount. In wage and hour class actions, minor wage violations can cost employers millions. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2298 Article: 2298 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Beginning July 1, 2008, drivers in California will be prohibited from using hand-held cell phones while driving. Hands-free devices, such as a Bluetooth or other earpiece, will be legal to use while driving as long as only one ear is covered. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2297 Article: 2297 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Complying with Health Privacy Laws; Are Layoffs on the Horizon?; AB 1825 Training: Consequences of Failing to Comply; Summer Heat; COURT WATCH; http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2290 Article: 2290 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) An armored car company employee, who was subject to an internal investigation by his employer for missing cash and eventually terminated, failed to prove his termination was due to his physical disability or in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, the California Court of Appeal ruled. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2286 Article: 2286 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) President Bush recently signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). The new law, when it takes effect at the end of 2009, makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees based on genetic characteristics. Yet, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) already prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information. In fact, the FEHA has traditionally provided broader protections against discrimination than federal law. This creates confusion for employers who do not understand the many distinctions between the federal and state statutes. While this article does not address all of those distinctions, below are some of the key differences. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2283 Article: 2283 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal emphasizes the need for employers to act quickly when claiming misappropriation of trade secrets. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2282 Article: 2282 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) California’s law banning the use of cell phones while driving goes into effect July 1, 2008. The California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act imposes a minimum $20 fine for anyone caught driving and using a cell phone unless the driver uses a headset, ear bud or other technology that frees both hands. The fine increases to $50 for subsequent violations. Drivers under 18 are prohibited from using cell phones while driving even if a hands-free device is used, and are also prohibited from using “mobile service devices” such as Blackberries, pagers and laptops.