Super User

Super User

A California Court of Appeal has ruled in Ward v. Tilly, that a scheduling practice used by many employers in which employees are required to call in ahead of time to confirm if they must report to work, is unlawful, unless the employee is paid reporting time pay, even if the employee does not need to report to the worksite.

The California Supreme Court has ruled in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, Cal., No. S238941, that ADP, LLC, a national payroll company, is not liable for mistakes made on the employee’s paycheck.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has proposed six (6) months of paid parental leave for parents of newborns.

In one of her first acts after being sworn in for her second term in the Assembly, Assemblymember Eloise Reyes (D-San Bernardino) introduced, along with Assemblymember Laura Friedman, AB 9 which extends the administrative timeline to bring forward a complaint of workplace harassment from one year to three years pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Cato Corporation, a leading retailer of women's fashion and accessories, has agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve a nationwide, systemic investigation conducted jointly out of the Chicago and Philadelphia Offices of the

 

SB 1343, in effect as January 1, 2019, expands the required AB 1825 harassment training to cover employers with five (5) or more employees (as opposed to employers with 50 or more employers), to include all nonsupervisory employees.

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) issued an interim final rule updating two model disclosures to reflect changes made to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by recent legislation.

Family HealthCare Network has agreed to pay $1.75 million and furnish other relief to settle a disability and pregnancy  discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC).

Many California employers do not understand their legal obligation to pay “premium pay.” An employer’s failure to understand the obligation to pay “premium pay” when owed to an employee, can result in costly litigation pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). In general, “premium pay” is extra pay, at an employee’s regular rate of pay, that is owed to an hourly (non-exempt) employee when the employee fails to take a rest or meal period by the required time, due to action by the employer. For example, if an employer needs an employee to take a delayed rest or meal period because the employer is short staffed, the employee is owed one extra hour of pay, for a missed meal or rest period, up to a total of 2 premium pays in one work day. Specifically, Labor Code section 226.7 provides:  “(a) No employer shall require an employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. [¶] (b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.” For any questions, let us know at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, (818) 206-9222. 

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has settled an employment discrimination case with the County of Los Angeles involving two complainants who were allegedly denied or delayed positions with the County due to the County’s pre-employment medical examination requirements, which the DFEH alleged were overly broad.

Headlines