On August 19, 2009, in response to the current economic downturn, the California Labor Commissioner published an Opinion Letter which provides employers with an option to laying off their exempt employees; furloughs.

Under the Labor Commissioner’s Opinion Letter, it is now lawful for California employers to reduce the work hours of their exempt staff, with a commensurate reduction in salary. California law now permits employers to temporarily reduce an exempt employee’s salary, with a commensurate reduction in hours, without jeopardizing the employee’s overtime exempt status, so long as employee still meets the minimum requirements for exempt status, such as wage ($2,773.33 per month) and duty requirements.

Previously, a 2002 Opinion Letter provided that a reduction of an exempt employee’s salary pursuant to a corresponding reduction in hours was a violation of California law. The August 19, 2009 Opinion Letter reverses this interpretation of California law. It is now permissible for employers to temporarily reduce exempt employees’ salaries when their hours are reduced without affecting the employees’ exemption status.

State rules concerning electronic discovery just got clearer. On June 29, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the Electronic Discovery Act (the “Act”), which became effective immediately. Just last year, the Governor vetoed an almost identical version of the Act in order to focus more attention on the budget crisis. Of course, we see how well that plan worked. The Act is modeled after the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The new rules govern the discovery procedure for electronically stored information (“ESI”) in California civil actions.

Continue Reading UPDATING CALIFORNIA’S DISCOVERY RULES WITH THE ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ACT

In Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, a California Court of Appeal has held that an employee can prove a case of discrimination by putting on evidence from other employees that claim that they too were subject to discrimination by the employer (“me too” evidence).

Continue Reading AN EMPLOYEE’S “ME TOO” EVIDENCE CAN PROVE DISCRIMINATION

The California Supreme Court has finally settled the troubling issue of whether intentional discrimination must be shown to prove a disability access claim under the California Unruh Act. In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., the Court decided the issue after it was certified to the California Supreme Court from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit because of the conflicting decisions in federal and state courts.

Continue Reading A DISABILITY ACCESS CLAIM UNDER THE UNRUH ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

In Nein v. HostPro, Inc., a Court of Appeal held that the language of the employee’s employment agreement precluded him from recovering commissions following his termination of employment. Plaintiff worked as a sales representative for HostPro for a period of 2 years. He signed an employment agreement that expressly provided that Plaintiff would be eligible for commission pay “so long as [he] remains employed with the Company as a Sales Representative.”

Continue Reading EMPLOYEE HAS NO RIGHT TO POST-TERMINATION COMMISSIONS