Labor Law

Subscribe to Labor Law via RSS

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

The National Labor Relations Board recently created significant uncertainty about the permissible scope of an employer’s social media policy. The Board issued a complaint against an employer who fired an employee for posting negative comments about her supervisor on her Facebook page.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: The NLRB’s Facebook Case: Employers Should Review Their Policies Dealing With Social Media