On November 6, 2012, nearly sixty percent of San Jose’s residents voted to raise San Jose’s minimum wage to $10.00. In doing so, San Jose became the fifth city in the United States to institute a higher minimum wage than otherwise required, joining San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Albuquerque and Santa Fe.
Latest Court of Appeal Decision in Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual) Depublished, the Administrative/Production Worker Dichotomy Remains Uncertain
By Ramona Carrillo on
Posted in Labor Law, Wage & Hour
If you’ve attended any of our seminars revolving around wage and hour issues over the past year, you will undoubtedly remember our discussions of Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual), and the so-called “administrative/production worker dichotomy.” You may also remember an earlier post discussing the California Supreme Court’s ruling last January (which can be found here – https://www.thelelawblog.com/2012/01/articles/wage-and-hour/misclassfied-as-a-matter-of-law-not-so-fast-say-the-supremes/).Continue Reading Latest Court of Appeal Decision in Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual) Depublished, the Administrative/Production Worker Dichotomy Remains Uncertain
Really? Again? – Another California Case Finds that the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement Will Not Govern their Dispute -in this Case a Dispute Centered on Whether or Not the Workers Were Independent Contractors or Employees
By Ramona Carrillo on
By: Lizbeth V. West, Esq.
There is a relatively long list of California cases that stand for the proposition that certain types of employment disputes are not subject to arbitration. On October 17, 2012, the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Elijahjuan et al v. Superior Court of LA County (Mike Campbell & Associates, Ltd., et al., as real parties in interest – referred to herein as “Defendants”) added to that list disputes between parties as to whether or not workers are in fact employees rather than independent contractors.Continue Reading Really? Again? – Another California Case Finds that the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement Will Not Govern their Dispute -in this Case a Dispute Centered on Whether or Not the Workers Were Independent Contractors or Employees
Amendments to Labor Code §226 Clarify Employers’ Wage Statement Obligations and Add Specific Requirements for Temporary Services Employers
By Ramona Carrillo on
Governor Brown recently approved SB 1255, AB 1744 and AB 2674, amending existing Labor Code section 226 relating to wage statements. Existing law requires all employers to provide employees with accurate itemized statements with specific information, either semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages. Penalties up to $4,000 or actual damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, can be imposed on employers who willfully violate these requirements. Now, wage statements for temporary services employees must contain additional information. New law also clarifies when an employee has suffered an “injury” for purposes of obtaining the penalties, and provides employers with an affirmative defense for inadvertent, one-off violations.Continue Reading Amendments to Labor Code §226 Clarify Employers’ Wage Statement Obligations and Add Specific Requirements for Temporary Services Employers
Governor Brown Signed AB 2103 to Make Clear that “MUTUAL WAGE AGREEMENTS” ARE ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA
As the L&E Law Blog readers may recall from the August 31, 2011 blog post and the teleseminar I conducted on September 14, 2011, the court in Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 567 was the sole California decision that held that “mutual wage agreements” were legal in California despite the express language in section 515 of the Labor Code.Continue Reading Governor Brown Signed AB 2103 to Make Clear that “MUTUAL WAGE AGREEMENTS” ARE ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA