Wage & Hour

Subscribe to Wage & Hour via RSS

By:       Scott M. Plamondon

UPDATED 12/21/2011: Based on the date on which the case was submitted at oral argument, the California Supreme Court was required to render a decision in this matter on or before February 6, 2012. On December 2, 2011, however, the Supreme Court agreed to accept additional briefing regarding whether its decision will be applied retroactively. The additional briefing likely will cause the Court’s decision to be delayed. Based on the current briefing schedule it appears that we could be waiting for a decision until April 2012.

Original Post:  

On November 8, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (“Brinker”). As you probably know, the Brinker case has been pending before the California Supreme Court since October 22, 2008. Now, by hearing oral argument on this case, the California Supreme Court has effectively signaled that it will publish a decision within the next 90 days.Continue Reading UPDATED! Brinker: The Wait Is Almost Over

laborDriving across the San Francisco Bay Bridge still provides one of the most beautiful views of any City I have seen in the United States. However, once off the bridge, you witness business owners besieged by a Frankenstein type laboratory of unfriendly employment laws. There is little doubt in my mind that, but for the view from the bridge, San Francisco would be Barstow, with nary a business in sight due to anti-employer laws. While these awful employment laws are good news for surrounding employer friendly counties, such as San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin, and Contra Costa, we must remain vigilant to ensure these toxins do not get dumped in the Bay to spread like the plaque they are.
Continue Reading San Francisco: Incubator for Bad Employment Laws

By:       Chuck Post

Because employers and employees have the right to reach agreement as to the terms, conditions and nature of the work, many employers believe that anything they can get an employee to agree to is legal and permissible. This notion can lead an employer into a violation of law. Some obligations, however, such as the obligation to pay overtime to non-exempt workers, the provision of worker’s compensation, and the obligation to provide a safe work environment (to name just a few) cannot be bargained away. An employee’s agreement to surrender these statutory protections is void, and can also constitute a violation of criminal law.Continue Reading Wage and Hour Refresher: Are You Committing a Misdemeanor?

By:     Charles L. Post

        Lawyer Answer: It depends.

        Here, that answer is not simply a dodge but is instead a reflection of what can be some complicated legal terrain. The question of advanced training costs arises in a number of situations: (1) where an employer advances costs for training to obtain a license or certification that is required by an ordinance or statute; (2) where such certification or licensure is not required by statute or ordinance but the employer requires it as a condition of employment; and (3) where the training is neither a requirement of statute, ordinance or by the employer, but reimbursement or supplement of such training costs or tuition is provided as a benefit. Continue Reading When Can an Employer Seek Reimbursement for Training Costs Advanced to an Employee?

By:       Lizbeth (“Beth”) West, Esq.

Governor Brown signed a significant number of bills into law during the 2011/12 legislative term, many of which will have a direct impact on almost every California employer, regardless of size. Many laws impose new obligations on employers and prevent employers from engaging in what they may otherwise thought was previously permissible. Below is a summary of the employment-related legislation that goes into effect on January 1, 2012 (except where noted).Continue Reading 2012 Brings A Whole New Set Of Obligations And Challenges For California Employers – Failure To Comply Could Be Devastating