Inc.

Not Providing Compliant Rest Breaks in California Could Break the Bank – New Clarifications from the State’s High Court

, and Posted on

Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during rest periods, despite no evidence showing that any employee’s rest period was ever actually interrupted.  This holding has significant implications statewide, and employers in California should promptly review their rest break policies to ensure full compliance.  READ MORE →

Sixth Circuit Affirms $250K Victory to SOX Whistleblower and Provides Broad Interpretation of SOX

and Posted on

On May 28, 2015, the Sixth Circuit in Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. affirmed a $250,000 jury verdict in favor of a former financial advisor for U.S. Bancorp Investments (“USBII”) who alleged that he had been terminated in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) whistleblower provisions.  In doing so, the Sixth Circuit rejected the “definitively and specifically” standard for proving protected activity under SOX and abrogated its prior SOX decision in Riddle v. First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Assoc., 497 F. App’x 588 (6th Cir. 2012) to the extent it relied upon the standard.

READ MORE →

Employers Finally Get a Break—Court Reverses $90 Million Verdict and Holds That Employers Are Not Required to Relieve Employees of All Duty During Rest Periods

and Posted on

On December 31, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California held in an unpublished opinion that employers are not required to relieve employees of all duty during rest periods mandated by California state law.  In so holding, the court in Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., No. B243788, 2014 WL 7463154 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2014), reversed the trial court’s award of approximately $90 million dollars in statutory damages, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees to the employees.

READ MORE →

Take Your Pick: E.D.N.Y. Decision Offers Guidance for Plaintiffs and Defendants Alike on How to Handle “Picking Off” Attempts in FLSA Collective Actions

and Posted on

“Sometimes surrender is the best option.” That is how Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the Eastern District of New York begins his opinion in Anjum v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., before denying J.C. Penney’s motion to dismiss a putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action based on the company’s offer to pay the claims of four named plaintiffs with offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68—a strategy often referred to as “picking off.” Even though the court rejected J.C. Penney’s picking off attempt in this case, the judge’s opinion in Anjum recognizes the validity of this tactic and provides some practical lessons for defense counsel looking to successfully pick off an FLSA collective in the Second Circuit.

READ MORE →

Federal Preemption Defense Running Out of Gas? 

Posted on

Recent decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court have thrown a road block in the way of employers relying on a federal statute to preempt certain state wage-and-hour law claims.  At issue is whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) precludes truck drivers from asserting claims for meal and rest break, minimum wage, and other violations under California law.  At least for now, the road is clear for such claims.

READ MORE →

Extra! Extra! Read All About It: California Supreme Court Affirms Reversal of Class Certification Denial for Class of Newspaper Carriers

Posted on

The California Supreme Court in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. recently affirmed and remanded the reversal of a denial of class certification in an independent contractor misclassification case, emphasizing the standard terms of the contractual agreements between the parties. The plaintiffs were newspaper carriers for the defendant newspaper publisher who were contracted pursuant to two preprinted standard form contracts. Based on the theory that they were misclassified as independent contractors, plaintiffs alleged overtime, meal and rest break violations, and sought reimbursement for expenses and penalties. READ MORE →

The Joint-Employer Standard: Like All Good Things, Is It About To Meet Its End?

and Posted on

On May 12, the National Labor Relations Board issued a notice and call for amicus briefs to address whether the Board should maintain its existing joint-employer standard or adopt a new one. Notice and Invitation to File Briefs, Browning-Ferris Indus. of California, Inc., Case 32-RC-109684 (May 12, 2014). READ MORE →

Employers Beware: You May be Liable for Your Employees’ Tortious Off-Duty Conduct during Their Commutes

Posted on

People Walking

In Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc., the California Court of Appeal concluded that employees who are required to use their personal vehicles to travel to and from the office and make other work-related trips during the day are acting within in the scope of their employment when they are commuting to and from work. READ MORE →

EEOC Cut Short for Shortcutting Path to Court – Again

Posted on

Last week, the EEOC suffered another major loss when a New York district court found that the EEOC once again shirked its pre-litigation obligations under Title VII. READ MORE →

A Midsummer Night’s Dream? Not So Much, For California Employers: Two New Employee-Friendly Bills Are Signed by Governor Brown

Posted on

Even in the summer months, the California legislature is busy changing the laws that affect the state’s employers. This summer, California’s governor signed into law two bills that should be of interest to all employers—one amending the definition of sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the other amending a provision of the California Labor relating to the award of attorneys‘ fees and costs in actions for the non-payment of wages. READ MORE →