Two African-American employees were denied promotions in the defendant’s food processing plant that were ultimately awarded to two Caucasians. Among the proof of discrimination they offered was the fact that their supervisor used the term “boy” in referring to them. The Court of Appeals held that this term was insufficient to show racial bias.
Held:…
Two African-American employees claimed that the owner of the company pointed a sawed-off shotgun at them and made threatening, racially-biased remarks. These events occurred while the employees were witnesses to a confrontation between the owner and a business agent. The employees claimed they experienced apprehension of imminent harmful contact and as a result felt forced…
California’s Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has released two opinion letters (OpLtrs) that should please employers by sanctioning their use of alternate, electronic wage payment methods. The OpLtrs approve the use of payroll debit cards and “Money Network checks” for the payment of wages under the California Labor Code, provided that:
…
Under California Labor Code section 351, tips are the “sole property” of the employees for whom they are left. As such, “employers” may not “collect, take, or receive” employee tips.
The issue in this case was who is the “employer” for purposes of section 351? At Starbucks, “shift supervisors” shared tips with other baristas. A…
State Court:
In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), a group of hourly non-exempt employees brought a class action against the restaurant employer claiming that the employer failed to comply with meal and rest period obligations and also required employees to work off the clock. The employees specifically claimed that: 1) the employer’s practice of having employees take “early lunches” shortly after starting their shift and then requiring them to work another five to ten hours without receiving another meal period violated Labor Code section 512(a) and the wage orders; 2) they were not provided their rest periods between their second and fourth hour of work, and were not provided the rest period before the first meal period; and 3) they were required to work off the clock when they were clocked out for their meal periods.
The employees argued that the wage and hour violations were amenable for class treatment because the employer’s non-compliance with wage and hour requirements could be determined by time card records and the employer’s policies and practices. The trial court agreed and granted class certification. The employer petitioned for a writ of mandate to the court of appeal. The court of appeal issued an unpublished decision which went up to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeal’s original decision and transferred the matter back to the court of appeal for reconsideration. It was on reconsideration that the court of appeal concluded that the class certification order from the trial court was erroneous and must be vacated because the trial court failed to properly consider the elements of the employees’ claims in determining whether they are susceptible to class treatment. In discussing the elements of the employees’ claims, the court of appeal handed down the following encouraging pronouncements:
