This blog post was authored by Jennifer Palagi.
It is well-settled that an employer must pay an employee wages for all off-the-clock work if the employer had actual or constructive knowledge about the work, even if the work was not authorized. The California District Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in Jong v.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear the appeal of Peggy Young. She wants the Court to decide whether, and in what circumstances, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”) requires an employer to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees. If the Supreme Court decides to take this case, it might possibly
Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name?” You may answer “independent contractor,” but someone else would say, “employee.” Does it matter? You better believe it. There are numerous laws that may very well cause employers to pay a lot more than they bargained for when hiring people and treating them as independent contractors. A recent court
The class action “cottage industry” seems to be healthy. Last year the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court and held that an employer must only provide its employees with statutorily mandated meal and rest periods; the employer is not required to ensure that the employees actually take the time off. The
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon issue a decision on whether an employer’s offer to an employee of the full amount of claimed overtime pay moots that employee’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case, and stops any larger scale collective action that employees and their attorneys might bring.
Under the FLSA, most employees who work
The California Court of Appeal recently highlighted a fundamental flaw in the California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) on a cause of action for retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The instruction is missing the element of retaliatory intent or animus. This flaw has not been brought to the forefront previously
When an employer inconsistently imposes discipline and does not follow its own discipline procedures and policies, it leaves room for employees to make claims of discriminatory animus. This was recently highlighted in a recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc. The Court held that an employee with
Two headline making lawsuits ignited a national debate over whether it should be illegal for an employer to make employment decisions based on an employee’s appearance. The Wall Street Journal reported that Cassandra Marie Smith filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Hooters, alleging that restaurant management told her during a performance evaluation to join