Labor Law

Subscribe to Labor Law via RSS

On July 18, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, in which it upheld the Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance enacted by Los Angeles in December 2005. That ordinance provides that when grocery stores of a specific size are acquired by a new owner, the current employees have certain rights during a 90-day transition period.   These rights include: the seller must prepare a list of non-managerial employees with at least six months employment as of the date of transfer and the buyer of the store must hire from that list during the transition period. Furthermore, the hired employees may only be discharged for cause during the transition period and that, at the end of the transition period, the buyer must prepare a written evaluation of each employee’s performance and “consider” offering all “satisfactory” employees continued employment. There are similar ordinances that have been adopted by several other California municipalities, such as Berkeley (Marina Business Workers), Emeryville (Hotel Workers), and San Jose (Airport Business Workers).Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Ordinance Regulating Ability to Replace Workers Upon Buying a Business

The California Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 30, 2011, which is viewed by many as hurting business travel to California.  The Court, in Sullivan v. Oracle, unanimously decided that non-resident employees working in California are entitled to overtime payment pursuant to California law.  The Court also gave out-of-state employees four years to sue their employer, holding that overtime work performed by out-of-state employees within California can serve as the basis for a claim under California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”).  (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.) Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Decided Employers Must Pay Non-Resident Employees Overtime

Employees in California generally are not eligible for state unemployment benefits if they quit their jobs voluntarily.  However, if the employee resigns for reasons related to childcare, he or she may still qualify for such benefits under the EDD’s regulations.  Childcare-related resignations often stem from changes in the employee’s domestic circumstances; for example, when the employee has separated or divorced from a spouse.  Such resignations may also result from the employee’s daycare provider becoming unable to continue performing such services; for example, if a daycare center closes its doors or if a relative, neighbor, or friend of the employee who watched the child is no longer available to do so.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Employees Who Resign for Childcare Reasons May Still Qualify for State Unemployment Benefits

Employers who are sued in state court by employees may obtain significant advantages in the litigation by removing the lawsuit from state court to federal court.  For instance, federal courts require a unanimous jury verdict (instead of a supermajority verdict), and jurors in federal court are often drawn from pools that demographically are more conservative and less tolerant of high awards of damages in civil actions.  However, not all cases can be removed to federal court, and certain circumstances must be present to execute such a maneuver.  A common basis for removal known as “diversity jurisdiction” may exist if the employee is a California resident and the employer is incorporated and headquartered in a different state (even though the employer does business or has operations in California).Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Employers Sued by the DFEH May Enjoy Federal-Court Advantages if They Move Quickly

Employers now may be permitted to include clauses known as class-action-waivers in arbitration agreements with employees, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Valid class-action-waivers restrict employees who wish to pursue legal recourse against employers to do so only through individual arbitrations and not as a member of a class action filed in court.  Simply put, these provisions require an employee to waive his or her right to participate in class-action litigation against the employer.  Where such waivers are allowed, employers may reduce substantially their exposure to costly class actions; for example, those alleging wage-and-hour or meal-and-rest-period violations.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Employers May Have Ability to Reduce Class-Action Exposure Under New U.S. Supreme Court Decision