Co-authored by Lizbeth West, Published by LexisNexis
Book Highlights:
…
On Thursday, Governor Jerry Brown, signed into law AB 241, providing overtime to nannies and other domestic workers in California. The new law requires employers to pay time-and-a-half overtime to any nanny, housekeeper, or personal attendant who works more than nine hours in one day, or 45 hours in a week. Coupled with California’s new $10 minimum wage by 2016, your nanny or housekeeper will soon cost you an overtime rate of $15 per hour.
Continue Reading Nanny State Gives Nannies Overtime Under New California Law
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
The California Supreme Court recently addressed whether insurance claims adjusters qualify for the administrative exemption under California law. (Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.).) The Court’s decision in late December 2011, focused on the issue of the “administrative/production worker dichotomy.” Here the Court was looking at whether employees who fall on the “production” side can ever qualify for the administrative exemption.
Continue Reading Misclassfied As A Matter of Law?: Not So Fast Say the Supremes!
Nineteen former employees who signed releases after being terminated in a RIF and who did not file EEOC charges may proceed in joining the class bringing ADA claims against their former employer. The plaintiffs alleged the waivers were invalid under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”) because they misrepresented the number of employees selected…
