Photo of Lukas Clary

Lukas Clary is a shareholder in the firm’s Labor and Employment and Litigation practice groups and serves as the firm’s Marketing Shareholder.  Lukas has experience representing clients in all aspects of employment litigation.  He regularly handles claims involving allegations of workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, unpaid overtime and wages, missed meal and rest periods, and class actions.

On September 11, 2020, the United States Department of Labor issued revised regulations governing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The regulations implement the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA) provisions of the FFCRA. The revised regulations were issued to address a decision from a

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government recently passed emergency legislation making up to two weeks of paid sick leave benefits available to employees who are forced to miss work for reasons relating to COVID-19. We previously blogged about the paid sick leave made available under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”)

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress recently passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). Among other things, the FFCRA requires certain employers to provide their employees with paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19. Employees’ leave rights under the FFCRA apply from April 1, 2020

Mandatory arbitration agreements in California employment have been granted a stay of execution. For now. Earlier today, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of AB 51, the new California law that would have banned employers in the state from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition

Figuring out how many employees to schedule each day can be an inexact science. Unexpected surges or lulls in customers, employee absences due to illness or emergencies, and various other circumstances can impact personnel needs.  Employers sometimes choose to navigate these situations by overscheduling and then cutting loose employees who are not ultimately needed.  That approach, however, triggers “reporting time” obligations, under which those employees are entitled to a minimum amount of pay for reporting for work. But what does it mean to “report for work”?  What if an employer allows employees to call in a few hours before a scheduled shift to determine whether they are needed? Are employees required to physically show up to trigger reporting time obligations, or do these phone calls constitute “reporting for work” for this purpose? The answer is the latter according to a recent California appellate court in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc.
Continue Reading Employees Are Entitled to Reporting Time Pay if Required to Call In to Confirm Shifts