The California Labor Commissioner’s ruling this week that Uber drivers must be considered employees, not independent contractors, is a big step forward for the rights of hundreds of thousands of drivers in California. Although this ruling applies only to the driver Barbara Ann Berwick, who brought this complaint, it paves
the way for class action lawsuits that could force the company to fundamentally change the way it does business. Continue reading “California Labor Commissioner Ruling that Uber Driver is an Employee is a Potential Big Win for California Employees”
Blog
“I want to sue my California employer for harassment and discrimination? But what happens if I lose my case?”
One important question that people often ask (and should ask) when thinking about suing their employer is, “What happens if I lose? Do I have to pay the defendant any money?”
In answering this question, it is critical to understand the difference between attorneys’ fees and costs. “Attorneys’ fees,” as the name indicates, are the actual fees that a defendant has paid to its attorneys to represent it in a lawsuit. “Costs” refers to the various expenditures that are made during the course of litigation, and can include things such as filing fees and court reporter fees.
In Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District S213100 (May 4, 2015) the California Supreme Court recently clarified the circumstances in which a plaintiff who files a case under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and loses must pay the defendant’s case costs. The FEHA governs claims under California law for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for complaining about discrimination and harassment, among other things. The Williams opinion will therefore impact all cases involving such claims. Continue reading ““I want to sue my California employer for harassment and discrimination? But what happens if I lose my case?””
Read more...Are Employers Required to Reimburse Employees for Personal Cell Phones Used at Work?
More and more employers require employees to use their personal cell phones for work. Yet California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for “all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer.” Over the past year, several cases have applied section 2802 to personal cell phones that employees are required to use at work-and required the employers to pay for the costs of those phones. This post explores some of those cases.
Hunter Pyle to speak in Webinar re PAGA Claims
On April 6, 2015, at 10 am Pacific Standard Time, I will be be speaking in a webinar that is devoted to PAGA claims. A description follows: In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision not to interfere, for now, in California’s treatment of PAGA waivers in arbitration agreements, is PAGA poised to become […]
Read more...Judge Chen, Judge Henderson, and a Ray of Sunshine re PAGA Claims in Hernandez v. DMSI
On January 11, 2015 I posted a comment about how some federal district courts in California were rejecting the part of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 in which Justice Goodwin Liu held that arbitration agreements that prevent workers from bringing representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, are unenforceable. As of last count, at least six courts had reached that unfortunate conclusion.
Recently, two judges in the Northern District of California have bucked this tide and sided with Justice Liu. In Hernandez v. DMSI Staffing, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12824 (February 3, 2015), Judge Edward Chen correctly held that PAGA waivers are unenforceable. According to Judge Chen, allowing such waivers would frustrate PAGA’s objectives because it would bar representative claims that are brought to protect the rights of employees under the California Labor Code. Continue reading “Judge Chen, Judge Henderson, and a Ray of Sunshine re PAGA Claims in Hernandez v. DMSI”
Read more...On-Call Meal Breaks and On-Call Rest Breaks: A Critical Difference
The law regarding meal and rest breaks continues to develop. As it develops, it becomes more and more technical. A recent decision of California’s Second Appellate District highlights a critical difference between meal and rest breaks. Continue reading “On-Call Meal Breaks and On-Call Rest Breaks: A Critical Difference”
Federal District Courts and California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)
California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, provides that employees can recover civil penalties that otherwise could be recovered only by state law enforcement agencies. Examples of the civil penalties that can be recovered under PAGA include penalties: for the failure to pay wages due (Labor Code (LC) § 210); for inadequate wage statements (LC […]
Read more...Hunter Pyle to speak on PAGA Claims for Low-Wage Workers
On January 18, 2015, Hunter Pyle, a partner at Hunter Pyle Law, will present at the fourth annual Staying True to Your Roots event in San Francisco. Staying True to Your Roots is a day-long program aimed at progressive attorneys, legal workers, and law students. Mr. Pyle will be presenting on the topic of using […]
Read more...A Bright Spot for Workers in Tuesday’s Dismal Election Results
Despite the lingering outrage and disapproval many of us have regarding the Republican victory at the polls last Tuesday, there were some major wins for workers across California and the country which should be embraced and not overlooked.
Raising Minimum Wages:
Starting local, both Oakland and San Francisco voted to raise their local minimum wages. Oakland’s minimum wage will go up to $12.25 next year and San Francisco is now on track to gradually increase its minimum wage to $15 by 2015. Continue reading “A Bright Spot for Workers in Tuesday’s Dismal Election Results”
Read more...Unpaid TV Interns Settle Large Class Action Against NBCUniversal
Last year, a federal judge in New York ruled that Fox Searchlight Pictures violated minimum wage laws by not paying interns that worked on the set of the movie “Black Swan.” In holding that employers could not simply avail themselves of free labor by calling employees “interns,” this case opened the pathway for other intern cases against entertainment industry giants.
In the latest victory, a group of former interns reached a 6.4 million dollar settlement with NBCUniversal this week, representing the largest settlement yet in this new streak of cases. While the original complaint involved New York interns, the case grew to include plaintiffs from other states. This recent settlement makes clear that companies need to change the blanket exploitation of interns across industries and across the country, or pay the significant price that inevitably come with the growth of these cases.
Continue reading “Unpaid TV Interns Settle Large Class Action Against NBCUniversal”
Read more...