In Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular, a California Court of Appeal ruled on December 21, 2011 that one class representative was not entitled to additional reporting pay or split shift premiums and a second class representative could not pursue such claims because she had signed a release in exchange for enhanced severance compensation. The court did, however, reverse the award of attorneysâ€™ fees to the employer.
Articles about California Labor And Employment Law.
On December 13, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reconsidered the case, Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., after the California Supreme Court had decided several certified questions of law. The Ninth Circuit had previously delayed ruling, and instead asked the California Supreme Court to decide three questions of California law, including whether a company with its principal place of business in California was required to pay out-of-state employees temporarily working in California according to Californiaâ€™s daily overtime rules.
A California Court of Appeal has ruled that a religious school teacher who was living “out of wedlock” with her boyfriend as they raised their child cannot state a claim against the church for wrongful termination based upon marital status discrimination. Henry v. Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin, No. G044556 (Fourth Dist., Div. Three Dec. 9, 2011).
Nonresidents of California are entitled to overtime pay under California law for work performed in California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled, following the California Supreme Courtâ€™s responses to its questions on state law. Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24625 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2011). The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer on claims for unpaid overtime under the California Labor Code (â€œLabor Codeâ€), as well as on claims under the California Unfair Competition Law (â€œUCLâ€), which were predicated on the Labor Code violations. However, the Court held that the UCL did not apply to alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act occurring outside of California.
In the first significant ruling of its kind, the Los Angeles Superior Court in Bright v. 99Â¢ Only Stores granted the defendantâ€™s motion to strike the plaintiffâ€™s representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allegations. The plaintiff, Eugina Bright, filed a complaint against 99Â¢ Only Stores in June 2009 alleging that the store failed to provide her, and all other cashiers, with suitable seating.
In a ground-breaking decision that will make it easier for employers to obtain restraining orders to protect their employees from violence in the workplace, a California appellate court has ruled that “all relevant evidence” must be considered in such proceedings â€“ even otherwise inadmissible hearsay. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, Nos. D058491 & D058492 (Fourth Dist., Div. One Dec. 5, 2011).
The required compensation levels for employees exempt from overtime under the California computer professional exemption will increase by 2.5 percent from the current levels beginning January 1, 2012, the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has announced.
San Franciscoâ€™s Health Care Security Ordinance has been amended to require more of certain employers with workers in the City and County of San Francisco. The amendments will take effect January 1, 2012.
A number of new employment bills making significant changes in California employment law and requiring review of employer human resources policies and employee handbooks has been signed by California Governor Jerry Brown. The new laws are effective January 1, 2012, unless otherwise indicated. We highlight what we believe to be the most significant below.
Responding to a stated concern over human trafficking and goods that are produced by forced or child labor, the California Legislature passed the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 with the goal of “ensur[ing] large retailers and manufacturers provide consumers with information regarding their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains.”1 This is the first state or federal law of its kind. Beginning January 1, 2012, every retailer and manufacturer doing business in California with annual worldwide gross receipts exceeding $100 million must conspicuously disclose on its website the extent to which it does the following:
Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony need not render a plaintiff-employeeâ€™s account of sexual harassment so â€œinherently improbableâ€ as to require reversal of the juryâ€™s verdict, the California Court of Appeal has held. The Court thus affirmed judgment in favor of the employee in a sexual harassment case.
In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled that there is no individual liability for discrimination or retaliation under California Military and Veterans Code section 394, which protects from discrimination employees who are called to active duty. Haligowski v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B231310 (Nov. 11, 2011).
In the latest twist in the developing law regarding the preemptive scope of California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA)1 a California federal court in Amron International Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Communication, Inc.2 (“Amron”) recently issued a decision reinvigorating the growing tension between courts addressing the issue of UTSA preemption â€“ a tension that, unfortunately, is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
A federal district court in California recently issued a decision, in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122421 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011), holding that motor carriers that transport property are not subject to California’s meal and rest break laws because such laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA Act).
The long awaited oral argument in the seminal meal and rest break decision involving Brinker Restaurant finally occurred today. Before a packed courtroom, lawyers for a hopeful class of waiters and waitresses and the representatives of California employers battled it out before the seven justices of the California Supreme Court.