join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 10

Does The De Minimis Defense Apply To California Labor Code Claims?

The California Supreme Court recently heard the case of Troester v. Starbucks Corporation which could significantly increase employers’ exposure to claims by hourly paid employees for small pre-shift and post-shift tasks that are currently treated as insignificant and not compensable.

San Francisco Revises Paid Sick Leave Ordinance Rules

On May 7, 2018, the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) published revised rules concerning the city’s generous Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (PSLO). The new rules come more than 10 years after the original groundbreaking rules were published in 2007. In the interim, a statewide paid sick leave law was created,1 effective July 2015,2 and the San Francisco ordinance was amended, effective January 2017.3 Aside from a handful of changes, the final substantive PSLO rules mirror the rules proposed in mid-March. Below we discuss the more notable new rules.

Proposed Law Allows for Data Breach Lawsuits Without Proof of Injury

SB 1121, which is making its way through the California Legislature, would allow businesses to be sued for data breaches even when no one was actually injured. This includes being sued for failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures as well as for failing to properly notify affected individuals of a breach of their personal information. Opponents of this bill are calling it a “job killer”.

San Francisco Amends Fair Chance Ordinance, Restricts Employer Inquiries About Marijuana-Related Convictions

On April 3, 2018, San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance. The amended ordinance, which will take effect on October 1, 2018, will significantly impact employers that employ, or seek to employ, individuals to work eight hours or more per week in San Francisco. As with the existing ordinance, the amended ordinance will apply to employers that employ full-time, part-time, temporary, seasonal, contract, contingent, and commission-based employees. The amended ordinance, however, will dramatically increase the number of employers to which it applies. While the existing ordinance applies to employers that employ 20 or more employees, the amended ordinance will apply to employers that employ as few as 5 employees worldwide. The amended ordinance will also apply to job placement agencies, referral agencies, and other employment agencies, as well as city contractors and subcontractors.

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 3152 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2018).

The ABCs of the Employment Relationship: California’s High Court Adopts New Independent Contractor Test

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of California adopted a new test to determine whether a worker performing services for a company is an employee or an independent contractor under California’s wage orders. The new three-factor test, known as the ABC test, will determine whether a company “employs” a worker under the wage orders, which address certain requirements for minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest periods, among others. The ABC test, which has long existed in other parts of the country in different forms, has not previously been used in California.

California Supreme Court Applies “ABC” Test When Assessing Independent Contractor Status

The California Supreme Court, in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, held that for purposes of claims under the California Wage Orders “engage, suffer or permit to work” determines employee status, thus requiring a defendant who disputes that a worker is an employee (rather than an independent contractor) to prove (A) the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with performing the work, both under contract and in fact; (B) the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker customarily engages in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hirer.

The New ABC's of Independent Contractor Classification in California

Executive Summary: On April 30, 2018, in the landmark decision Dynamex Operations West, LLC v. Superior Court of California, the California Supreme Court established a new test for determining who qualifies as an independent contractor under California’s Wage Orders. Under the new test, known as the “ABC test,” workers will be considered employees who are “suffered or permitted to work” under the Wage Orders unless an employer can establish three factors:

California Supreme Court Establishes Employee-Friendly Independent Contractor Test

A new California Supreme Court ruling makes it significantly more challenging for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

California Narrows Workers Who Will Qualify as Independent Contractors for Wage-Hour Purposes

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee), adopting a very broad view of the workers who will be deemed “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors” for purposes of claims alleging violations of California’s Wage Orders. This is a surprising decision that magnifies the risk of classifying workers as independent contractors in California, and is likely to lead to increased claims (in an already litigious area) challenging such classifications in this state. This is particularly true because the Court’s decision makes it easier for plaintiffs to succeed in getting a class certified in an independent contractor misclassification case.