Brittini Zuppardo was talking with one of her employer’s court reporters, Michelle Halkett, while driving home from her boyfriend’s house late one evening. Ms. Zuppardo was still on the phone when her vehicle crashed into Plaintiff Jessica Ayon, a pedestrian. Ms. Ayon sustained significant injuries. The police report indicated that Ms. Zuppardo was on the phone with “one of her court reporters” when the collision occurred. Continue reading “Employer not Liable in Personal Injury Lawsuit where Employee was on her Cell Phone at the Time of the Accident”
Read more...Uncategorized
California Employers Must Pay for All Off-The-Clock Work: Troester v. Starbucks
In Troester, for example, Starbucks sought to use the de minimis doctrine to avoid paying wages for short periods of time spent closing the store and transmitting daily sales, profit and loss, and store inventory data to Starbucks’s corporate headquarters. Starbucks also sought to avoid paying for time spent activating the store’s alarm.
All in all the plaintiff estimated that he was owed about $100. That may not sound like a lot, but give the number of Starbucks in California it is clear that Starbucks was saving itself a significant amount of money in unpaid wages through its practices.
Troester reaffirms California’s strong commitment to ensuring that workers are paid for every minute that they work. If you are being forced to work off-the-clock, or have questions about your rights in the workplace, feel free to contact us at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com or (510) 444-4400 for a free and confidential initial intake.
Continue reading “California Employers Must Pay for All Off-The-Clock Work: Troester v. Starbucks”
Read more...Can My Boss Run a Background Check on Me in California?
California has two laws that protect employees from unauthorized background checks: the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1785, et seq. (“CCRAA”) and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1786, et seq. (“ICRAA”). (This blog post addresses only ICRAA, but we will post about CCRAA soon.) The California Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of these statutes in a case called Connor v. First Student, Inc., S229428 (August 20, 2018). So now what? Continue reading “Can My Boss Run a Background Check on Me in California?”
Read more...Waiting Time Penalties under California Labor Code section 203
What are Waiting Time Penalties? California Labor Code Section 203 provides for penalties to workers who are not paid all wages due at the time of their termination, or within 72 hours of their resignation. Waiting time penalties are in the amount of the wages that the worker normally earns, up to a maximum of […]
Read more...National Lawyers Guild Presents Hunter Pyle with the Champion of Justice Award
On April 14, 2018, the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter presented Hunter Pyle with the Champion of Justice Award at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts. Hunter was recognized for dedicating his career to fighting for economic justice as an employment attorney, championing the causes of workers’ rights, and contributing to […]
Read more...Bonuses and Overtime in California: Does Your Company Owe You More Money?
If you work overtime in California and are are paid a bonus in addition to your hourly rate, you may be owed more money under a new California Supreme Court decision called Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. (2018) 2018 WL 1146645.
In Alvarado, the workers were paid an “attendance bonus” if they worked on a Saturday or Sunday: In addition to their hourly rate, they were paid an extra $15 per day of weekend work. California law requires that bonuses be included as wages when calculating overtime rates for employees who work more than eight hours in a day, or more than 40 hours in a week.
The question in Alvarado was how to calculate an employee’s overtime rate when the employee earned a flat sum bonus during a single pay period. Both the trial court and the court of appeal granted summary judgment to the employer. However, the California Supreme Court reversed, and clarified how flat rate bonuses should be factored into overtime pay: Continue reading “Bonuses and Overtime in California: Does Your Company Owe You More Money?”
Read more...Are You a Salaried Employee If You are Paid by the Hour?
Under California law, employers must pay workers overtime when work is performed: 1) over forty hours in a workweek; 2) over eight hours each day; or 3) on the seventh consecutive day in a workweek. However, employees that fall under the professional, executive, and administrative exemptions may be excluded from earning overtime compensation. For an […]
Read more...Using PAGA Claims To Recover Unpaid Wages: A Win For Workers In Lawson v. ZB
California workers are increasingly turning to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to protect their rights under the Labor Code. Labor Code section 558(a) is particularly useful to workers who have not been paid all wages owed, because it provides that workers can recover as a civil penalty any underpaid wages as well as an additional penalty of $50 or $100 for each pay period in which they were not paid all wages due.
California employers have been trying to force PAGA claims, including claims under section 558, into arbitration, where they believe they have a better chance of prevailing. Employers got a boost in 2017 from one particularly troublesome case called Esparza v. KS Industries (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228. There, the court held that the underpaid wages portion of a claim under Section 558 (as opposed to the penalties portion) was subject to arbitration.
Fortunately, another California court of appeal has issued a decision that rejects Esparza. In Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705 , the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that claims for unpaid wages under Section 558 cannot be severed from claims for penalties under that same section. Accordingly, such claims cannot be sent to arbitration. Continue reading “Using PAGA Claims To Recover Unpaid Wages: A Win For Workers In Lawson v. ZB”
Read more...An Employer Can Potentially be Held Liable if a Nonemployee Sexually Harasses an Employee
What happens if a nonemployee harasses or sexually assaults an employee in the workplace? Is the employer liable? Possibly. On October 26, 2017, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District considered whether an employee’s claims against her employer for violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment and failing to prevent harassment overcame the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine. M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management, LLC (D070150, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 10/26/17). Continue reading “An Employer Can Potentially be Held Liable if a Nonemployee Sexually Harasses an Employee”
Read more...New California Law Prohibits Employers from Asking Job Applicants about Salary History
On October 12, 2017, Assembly Bill 168, which prohibits employers from asking job applicants for salary history information, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Governor Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2015 on the grounds that it would prevent employers “from obtaining relevant information with little evidence that this would assure more equitable wages.” This time around, the bill enjoyed the support of both parties and the governor. Continue reading “New California Law Prohibits Employers from Asking Job Applicants about Salary History”
Read more...