On May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc. held that the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court applied retroactively. Dynamex adopted the “ABC” test for independent contractor classification for claims arising under California’s Wage Orders. For those claims, an employer must show that all three prongs of the ABC test are met to justify independent contractor status. For information on Dynamex’s adoption of the ABC test, read our prior coverage here. READ MORE
Orrick’s Employment Law and Litigation group was recently named Labor & Employment Department of the Year in California for the fourth consecutive year by The Recorder, the premier source for legal news, in recognition of their significant wins on behalf of leading multinational companies on today’s most complex and challenging employment law matters.
Alex was recently named California Young Lawyers Association (CYLA) Section Liaison to the Labor and Employment Section of the California Lawyers Association (CLA) and is an editorial board member of the CLA Labor & Employment Section Law Review.
Alex focuses her practice on defending employers in class- and collective-actions brought under federal and state wage and hour laws, including misclassification, meal and rest periods, off-the-clock work, expense reimbursement, and Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims. She also routinely defends employers in high-stakes single plaintiff cases involving leaves and accommodations, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblowing, wrongful termination, and trade secrets.
Her counseling practice focuses on providing advice to management, designing appropriate workplace policies and procedures, and offering creative and practical solutions to address a wide range of employment issues including new and developing areas of the law.
Posts by: Alexandra Stathopoulos
In a break from federal law, the California Supreme Court clarified in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. the proper formula for calculating flat-rate bonuses into overtime pay under California law. The Court adopted the Plaintiff’s position and held that, for purposes of calculating the per-hour value of a flat rate bonus, the divisor should be the number of nonovertime hours the employee worked in the pay period rather than all hours worked during the pay period. READ MORE
On October 12, 2017, California joined a growing trend of jurisdictions attempting to address pay disparities by enacting a law that bans employers from seeking salary history information, including compensation and benefit information, from job applicants. We have previously highlighted a similar salary history ban in New York City and have written about the concerns with employers relying upon salary history. This includes the concern that relying upon salary history may perpetuate existing pay disparities. READ MORE
On Friday, June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief reflecting a change of heart when it comes to the enforceability of class waivers in arbitration agreements. In an unprecedented move, President Trump’s acting solicitor general, Jeffrey B. Wall, said his office had “reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion” as the Obama administration in a set of consolidated cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc. (Docket Nos. 16-285, 16-300, and 16-307).
For anyone who missed it, on Monday, March 14th the “Opportunity to Work Ordinance” (the “Ordinance”) went into effect in San Jose. The Ordinance, which was approved by voters on November 8, 2016, requires employers to offer additional hours to existing part-time employees before hiring externally, either directly or through a temporary staffing agency. Employers must offer the additional hours to employees who have the skills and experience to perform the work. Whether or not an existing employee has the requisite skill and experience is a determination left to the employer – modified only by the requirement that the employer act in good faith and with reasonable judgment. Further, an employer need not offer an existing employee additional hours if doing so would require the employer to compensate the existing employee at time-and-a-half or any other premium rate under the law or a collective bargaining agreement. READ MORE
On September 25, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1241 into law, prohibiting employers doing business in the Golden State from requiring California employees, as a condition of employment, to agree to non-California choice-of-law or venue provisions for claims arising in California, either in litigation or arbitration. Such provisions are frequently found in employment, arbitration, or non-compete agreements. The new law will be codified as California Labor Code section 925, and will apply to contracts entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.
On October 23, 2015, in a suit filed by Bio-Rad’s former general counsel Sanford Wadler, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss in Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs, Inc. (No. 15-CV-02356-JCS, 2015 WL 6438670 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015), holding, among other things, that corporate directors may be held personally liable for retaliating against a whistleblower under both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank).
California employers should keep an eye on a new challenge to arbitration provisions on its way to the Governor’s desk. On August 24, 2015, the California Senate passed AB 465, which would make it unlawful for any employer or other company to “require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of [the California Labor Code], as a condition of employment, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Labor Commissioner, state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity.” The Senate version eliminates the originally proposed $10,000 per violation penalty, but continues to authorize an award of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff seeking to enforce the section. The Assembly concurred in the Senate’s amendments on August 27, 2015, and the bill will reach the Governor shortly.
On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in France v. Johnson, holding that an average age difference of less than 10 years between an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) plaintiff and the individual(s) promoted in lieu of the plaintiff creates a rebuttable presumption that the difference was insubstantial. The “rebuttable presumption” approach affords limited protection to an employer faced with an ADEA suit, and highlights the need for employers to implement appropriate policies and training to mitigate the risk of such claims.
On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., holding that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) requires courts to consider the extent to which an employer’s policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than it treats non-pregnant workers similar in their ability or inability to perform their job duties.