In UPS v. Superior Court (Los Angeles), the California Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 226.7 permits up to two premium payments per work day. There, UPS was sued by numerous employees who were seeking compensation for UPS’s alleged failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods
The Types And Benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution
The Wagner Legal Group strongly believes in Alternative Dispute Resolution, such as pre-litigation mediation, settlement conferences, neutral evaluation, and arbitration. In fact, more and more courts are demanding that parties engage in dispute resolution, even if suit has already been filed. For a
Owners Can Recover The Costs To Care For A Pet Wrongfully Injured By Another
Recently, in Kimes v. Grosser, the California Court of Appeal held that a pet owner can recover the costs of care of the pet attributable to the injury cause by another if the costs are found to be reasonable and necessary. In Kimes, the plaintiff alleged that his neighbor, the defendant, shot his
Are Independent Witness Statements Discoverable By Parties In Litigation?
In 1996, the Third District Court of Appeal in Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court held that statements given by witnesses to an attorney working on a case were not discoverable by the other parties in litigation. The Appellate Court held that the work-product privilege barred
AT&T Mobility, LLC. v. Concepcion: U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Companies To Take Advantages Of Consumers
Recently, in AT&T Mobility, LLC. v. Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a class action waiver ban was unenforceable under California law. This ruling has significant consequences for many consumers, as well as
Does California Law Require That Meal Breaks Must Be Provided Or That They Must Be Taken?
In Brinker v. Superior Court, the issue was whether California law required employers to provide the opportunity for meal breaks or to ensure the breaks were taken. In July 2008, the Court of Appeal held that the employer was only required to make the breaks available, and did not have to ensure
Ninth Circuit Holds That An Employer Is Not Required to Provide Indefinite Leave Of Absence
In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Lucent Technologies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that under California law, an employer was not required to provide an indefinite leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s disability. Plaintiff Steven Carauddo was
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That States May Require Employers To Use The Federal E-Verify System
On May 26, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Arizona in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The Supreme Court held that the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) was a valid and enforceable law. The LAWA requires all employers doing business in Arizona to use the use the federal
