The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 provides that an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days for prescribed purposes, to be accrued at a rate of no less than one
Court Rules FedEx Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors
In Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., the Court ruled that the FedEx drivers were employees. A group of individuals who drove delivery routes for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home in California sued wage/hour violations, alleging that they were employees, rather than independent contractors.
An Employer May Not Attribute Commissions Paid In One Period To Other Pay Periods
In Peabody v Time Warner Cable, the Court held that an employer may not attribute commission wages paid in one pay period to other pay periods in order to satisfy California’s compensation requirements. The plaintiff sued asserting that she earned salary plus commissions based on her monthly sales
California Supreme Court Chimes In On Defenses Concerning Illegal Immigrants Working In California
In Salas v. Sierra Chemical, the Court held that SB No. 1818, which extends state law employee protections and remedies to all workers “regardless of immigration status,” is not preempted by federal immigration law except to the extent it authorizes an award of lost pay damages for any period after
Landlord Entitled To Credit Rental Value For Resident Manager
In Von Nothdurft v. Steck, the Court ruled that when a defendant landlord hired the plaintiff to work as a resident manager, and the contract provided he would get free rent while the manager, this was sufficient and the landlord was entitled to a credit or the rental value of the apartment against
California Supreme Court Clarifies Methods Of Proof In Class Action Cases
In Duran v. US Bank, N.A, the California Supreme Court clarified the methods of proof permitted in class action cases. There, loan officers for the bank sued for overtime, claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption. The case went to trial. The trial
Plaintiff Can Recover Substantial Attorneys’ Under the FEHA, Even If Jury Recovery Is Limited
In Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an award of nearly $700,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff, even when the jury only awarded her $27,280 in damages for violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. It ruled that despite the clear
Appellate Court Reverses Denial of Class Certification
In Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, the trial court denied certification of a class action case involving approximately 750 cell-phone technicians, most of which were hired by outside staffing companies. The class alleged the failure to provide meal and rest breaks and overtime. The plaintiffs