• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

  • ABOUT
    • ATTORNEYS
      • MARK H. WAGNER
      • OUTSIDE CO-COUNSEL
    • AREAS WE SERVE
    • ARTICLES
    • RESOURCES
    • RESULTS
    • CLIENT REVIEWS
    • VIDEOS
  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • GENDER/SEX DISCRIMINATION
      • PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
      • RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
      • RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/
      WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

Employment

July 27, 2018

California Does Not Use The De Minimis Doctrine Found in Fair Labor Standards Act

In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court was asked by the Ninth Circuit to answer whether the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine applies to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197? The California Supreme Court

Employment

July 22, 2018

Taco Bell’s Discounted Meals Program For Employees On Breaks On Premises Is Legal

In Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corporation, the Court analyzed whether Taco Bell offering their employees a discounted meal to eat during their 30-minute lunch break, subject to a restriction that the meal be eaten on the premises, violated the law. California Wage Order 5-2001 requires employees be

Employment

July 6, 2018

A Preprinted Release In A Workers’ Compensation Case Was Not A General Release Waiving All Employment Claims

In Camacho v. Target Corporation, the Court addressed a workers’ compensation waiver and whether it constituted a general waiver.  The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for discrimination based on sexual orientation, harassment causing a hostile work environment, failure to prevent harassment and

Employment,  Litigation

May 26, 2018

Waiting Time Penalties Are Tied To Willful Employer Underpayment And Courts Lack Discretion To Waive Them

In Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court decision finding an employer liable for waiting time penalties. Here, defendant employer was required to pay its employees a living wage subject to an ordinance promulgated by the Los Angeles City Council. When the

Employment,  Litigation

May 23, 2018

Aggrieved Employees May Bring Representative PAGA Claims For All Labor Code Violations

In Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court’s interpretation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in holding that a person personally affected by at least one Labor Code violation committed by an employer – an “aggrieved employee” – may

Employment,  Litigation

May 22, 2018

Representative PAGA Claims Do Not Require Proof Of Injury Or A Knowing And Intentional Violation.

In Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, the Court of Appeal affirmed in part, and reversed in part, a decision by the trial court granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought by Plaintiff under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), in both a representative and

Employment,  Litigation

May 5, 2018

Probationary Employees Taking Medical Leave May Deduct That Time From Their Respective Probationary Periods

In Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College District, the Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court decision holding that an employer failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s temporary total disability and did not engage in a good faith interactive process with Plaintiff to determine

Employment,  Litigation

April 11, 2018

Employers May Not Consider Prospective Employees’ Former Salaries When Setting Wage Differentials

In Rizo v. Yovino, the 9th Circuit considered the text of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d)(1). The relevant section states that employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of sex by paying men and women different wage rates except where such payments are made pursuant to

Business Litigation,  Business Transactions,  Employment,  Litigation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Page 7
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 18
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

(310) 857-5293

Free Consultation

SCHEDULE

Practice Areas

  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • Gender/Sex Discrimination
      • Pregnancy Discrimination
      • Race/National Origin Discrimination
      • Religious Discrimination
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY

ARRANGE A FREE CONSULTATION

consult

Footer

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
(310) 857-5293

2601 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 208, Santa Monica, CA 90405

Wagner Legal Group P.C.

Copyright © 2025 · Business Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

© 2023 WAGNER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. | Legal Disclaimer ● Privacy Policy ● Sitemap