Employment Law Information Network
All Things Labor and Employment Law
Relying on the parties’ written employment agreement and compensation plans, a California federal district court held that an at-will employee who was laid off due to COVID-19 could not recover commissions that were not fully earned prior to his termination. Peak v. TigerGraph, Case no. 21-cv-02603 (Sept. 7, 2021).
Background
California’s Governor has signed Senate Bill 606 (SB 606), which authorizes Cal/OSHA to issue a citation for egregious violation of an occupational safety or health standard, order, special order, or regulation for each willful violation determined by Cal/OSHA, and count each employee affected by the violation as a separate violation
On September 27, 2021, the Governor signed Senate Bill 62 (SB 62), which expands the definition of the garment manufacturing industry for purposes of wage claim enforcement to include brand guarantors. A brand guarantor is a person who contracts for the performance of garment manufacturing.
SB 62 specifies that a
Employers of all sizes, potentially including individual owners, managers and executives, should be aware of heavier penalties or jail time for engaging in wage theft. According to the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, wage theft occurs anytime an employer does not pay workers what they are owed by law.
California’s Governor
On July 15, 2021, in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the Supreme Court of California set forth a new rule requiring that premiums for meal, rest, and recovery break violations be paid at the regular rate of pay.
The Supreme Court of California recently issued two opinions assessing the breadth of California’s prevailing wage law.
Before the court in Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. was a specific question about whether California Labor Code section 1772 helped establish the scope of coverage by providing that workers employed
San Francisco’s Measure L, which passed with the overwhelming support of the voters, will be effective in 2022 for businesses operating in the City of San Francisco. Measure L titled the “Overpaid Executive Gross Receipts Tax”, imposes a supplementary tax on gross receipts or payroll expenses of any business in
In Levanoff v. Dragas, the California Court of Appeal surprised many of us and upheld an employer’s calculation of overtime due to non-exempt employees using the “rate in effect” method. Why does that matter?
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1003 would create a new type of grand theft in the state: a company’s “intentional theft of wages” of more than $950 from any individual employee, or $2,350 total from 2 or more employees, in a 12-month period. The bill requires that the theft be intentional,
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in Jessica Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC that Labor Code Section 226.7 requires employers to pay meal and rest period premiums for each workday in which they were not provided a meal or rest period at a rate equivalent to the employee’s regular rate of pay. In sum, the Court held that employers are required to use overtime rules by factoring in all non-discretionary pay earned during the workweek when calculating the employee’s meal and rest period premiums.
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court concluded that when an employer fails to provide an employee with a compliant rest or meal break, the employee is entitled to a premium payment of one hour of pay at the employee’s “regular rate of pay,” as opposed to an hour of pay at the agreed upon base hourly or straight-time rate of pay. In doing so, the Court sought to maximize protections for employees by requiring employers to factor bonuses and other non-discretionary compensation into the break premium rate of pay. Otherwise, the Court claimed, employers would be incentivized to depress employees’ hourly wages in favor of non-hourly incentive compensation.
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court has concluded that an employee’s “regular rate of compensation” for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s “regular rate of pay” for overtime. Accordingly, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must pay those, not
California employers should be familiar with Labor Code section 226.7, which requires the payment of a one-hour premium to non-exempt employees who do not receive compliant rest breaks and meal periods.
By: California Employers Should Prepare for July 1 Minimum Wage Increases In Certain Cities and Counties
The current minimum wage is $14 per hour in California for all employers with 26 or more employees. For employers who have less than 26 employees, the state minimum wage is $13 per hour.
California
Social Profiles