Header graphic for print
Employment Law E-Buzz Easy-to-digest updates on emerging employer legal issues

Category Archives: Wage and Hour

Subscribe to Wage and Hour RSS Feed

Did You Know…Lady Gaga Settles Wage and Hour Claim

Posted in Wage and Hour

As we reported to you earlier in the year during our annual employment seminars, Lady Gaga was sued by her former personal assistant who alleged Lady Gaga violated federal law by failing to pay her overtime for being “on-call” 24/7.  Her personal assistant claimed overtime ”for every hour of every day” beyond 40 hours a week during her 13 months of employment.  As… Continue Reading

Did You Know… A New San Francisco Ordinance Imposes a Duty on Employers to Consider and Respond to Employee Requests for Flexible Work Arrangements

Posted in Disability Discrimination, Leave Laws, Wage and Hour

On October 1, 2013, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance, giving employees the right to request flexible work schedules to assist with caregiver responsibilities.  Under the ordinance, San Francisco employers will be required to formally consider and respond to such requests.  San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has stated that… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Ninth Circuit Holds No Aggregation of PAGA Penalties to Establish Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

Posted in Class Actions, Court Decisions, Litigation, Wage and Hour

In Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of California Inc., a divided Ninth Circuit held that civil penalties recoverable by individual employees under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) cannot be aggregated to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. A wage-and-hour representative PAGA action brought originally in California state court, Urbino was removed… Continue Reading

Did You Know…“Primary Purpose” Is The Appropriate Test To Determine Exemption Status Of An Employee

Posted in Wage and Hour

In Heyen v. Safeway, Inc., an action to recover unpaid overtime pay by a former assistant manager, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s award of overtime pay to Heyen, even though she was classified as an exempt employee while she was employed by Safeway. Heyen claimed that Safeway should have classified her as… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Court of Appeal Applies Brinker To Reverse Denial of Class Certification

Posted in Wage and Hour

On May 10, 2013, the California Court of Appeals in Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates reversed its denial of class certification as to meal period and rest period violations in light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.  (Recall, Brinker granted class certification to determine the lawfulness of a uniform… Continue Reading

Did You Know…New FMLA Regulations Are In Effect

Posted in Forms, Leave Laws, Wage and Hour

As we recently reported to you at our 2013 Emerging Employment Law Seminar, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued a Final Rule which amends the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  The Final Rule primarily impacts leave for military service members and became effective on March 8, 2013.  A new poster was published  in… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Class Certification Denied in Wang v. Chinese Daily News

Posted in Class Actions, Court Decisions, Wage and Hour

In Wang v. Chinese Daily News, the Ninth Circuit reversed the class certification it had previously affirmed and remanded the matter for further consideration of Rule 23(a) commonality and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.  Notably, the Ninth Circuit applied the 2011 United States Supreme Court decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart and held that Wal-Mart‘s  prohibition on “trial by… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Class Action for Meal and Rest Break Violations Defeated – Legally Compliant Policies Are Key

Posted in Court Decisions, Wage and Hour

In Flores v. Lamps Plus, Inc., the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification based on Lamps Plus’s alleged failure to ensure that employees took their meal and rest breaks.   Relying on Brinker, the Court  held that  “the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Wage and Hour Class Actions Can Be Converted into Individual Arbitrations Which Can Significantly Reduce an Employer’s Exposure

Posted in Class Actions, Court Decisions, Wage and Hour

Employers who have arbitration agreements may be able to convert putative wage and hour class actions into individual arbitrations, reducing their potential exposure from millions (or hundreds of millions) to thousands of dollars.  In 2010, the Supreme Court held in Stolt–Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp. that if the parties to an arbitration agreement… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Prevailing Parties in Meal or Rest Break Actions Are Not Entitled to Attorney Fees

Posted in Court Decisions, Wage and Hour

On the heels of Brinker, the California Supreme Court ruled on April 30, 2012, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., that parties prevailing on a claim that Labor Code section 226.7 was violated are not entitled to attorney’s fees.  Section 226.7, subdivision (a) prohibits employers from requiring employees to work during Industrial Welfare Commission (Wage… Continue Reading

Did You Know…Labor Commissioner Updates California Wage Theft Act FAQs and Template

Posted in Wage and Hour

The California Wage Theft Act (Act) (Lab. Code § 2810.5) requires employers to provide all new nonexempt hires with written notice of specific wage information including employee’s wage rates, the pay day schedule, and workers’ compensation coverage information.  It also increases the penalties for nonpayment of all wages due, including overtime premiums and minimum wage… Continue Reading

Did You Know…The California Supreme Court Has Clarified Meal and Rest Period Obligations

Posted in Class Actions, Court Decisions, Wage and Hour

The California Supreme Court finally issued its long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.  In a unanimous opinion, the Court held employers (1) need only provide meal and rest periods, not ensure nor police that they are taken, (2) are not required to provide a meal period every five hours (no rolling meal… Continue Reading