Labor & Employment Law Blog

As we previously reported here, there was little doubt Governor Jerry Brown's appointment of UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court would be swiftly confirmed by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments, consisting of three members:  California Supreme Court Presiding Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (appointed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger), California Attorney General Kamala Harris (a Democrat elected in 2010 after serving as the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco), and Senior Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal  Joan Dempsey Klein (appointed by Governor Brown during his first term as Governor of California).  

On August 17, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held an employee does not have to be licensed as an attorney to qualify as an exempt employee under "learned professions" exemption of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001. This case is significant because it allows an employer to apply the learned professions exemption to individuals who may not be licensed. Employers can make individual determinations based on an individual's actual education, training, and duties. This permits a more flexible application of the exemption that takes into consideration the realities of a given situation. 

In an announcement dated August 25, 2011 the National Labor Relations Board confirmed the approval of a final rule which requires all employers under NLRB jurisdiction to post a Notice which will inform employees of their rights. Those rights include to form and join unions and to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection, which may include group protests over working conditions or demands for workplace change through social media. A fact sheet with additional information about the rule can be downloaded by clicking here.

In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Court of Appeal held that evidence of employee or job applicant wrongdoing discovered after an allegedly discriminatory termination or refusal to hire that would have caused the employer to terminate the employee or to refuse to hire the employee can be a complete defense to claims for alleged wrongful termination, to claims for alleged discriminatory refusal to hire, and to claims for alleged failure to reasonably accommodate an alleged disability. 

Over ten years ago, in Earley v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, the California Court of Appeal held that employers who defeat claims for allegedly unpaid overtime wages or minimum wages are not entitled to recover their attorneys fees. The court reasoned that Labor Code section 1194 is a one-way attorney's fees statute that permits prevailing employees but not prevailing employers to recover their attorney's fees. In that case, the court further held that permitting prevailing employers to recover their attorney's fees would be contrary to public policy in that it would have a chilling effect on the right of employees to sue for allegedly unpaid overtime wages or minimum wages. 

Last year the California Legislature passed SB 1304, providing employees an opportunity to take paid leaves of absence from work for bone marrow and organ donation, as previously reported here. The law took effect January 1, 2011 and applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The law allows for leaves for organ donation of up to 30 days and bone marrow donation of up to five days in a one-year period. The law ...

As we previously reported here, the California Court of Appeals decided in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court that an employer's obligation to "provide" to non-exempt employees meal periods required by the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders is to make those meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take the meal periods provided to them.  

As we previously reported here and here, in May, the National Labor Relations Board filed complaints against at least two employers alleging the employers violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by disciplining employees on account of disparaging statements the employees posted on Facebook statements criticizing their employers. In one of those cases, the employer terminated an employee for posting on his Facebook page photographs and comments criticizing the dealership for serving only hot dogs and water to customers at a dealership sales event promoting a new model. Salespersons complained that serving only hot dogs and water could negatively impact their sales commissions. The NLRB alleges in both both of the cases that the employees statements posted on Facebook are protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the NLRA because the statements involved a discussion among employees about their terms and conditions of their employment.

As we previously reported here, the California Court of Appeals decided in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court that an employer's obligation to "provide" to non-exempt employees meal periods required by the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders is to make those meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take the meal periods provided to them.  

Employment litigation often gives rise to discovery demands by the plaintiff(s) seeking information about the employer's other current and former employees who are not parties to the litigation and, often, employment records of such non-party employees. This occurs in both class action cases and in non-class action cases. In many cases, such discovery demands are little more than thinly disguised fishing expeditions at the employer's expense. Although existing case law recognizes the privacy rights of non-party current and former employees and generally requires courts to balance those privacy rights against the legitimate discovery needs of plaintiffs in employment cases and to employ certain safeguards, those laws are not always consistently applied by trial courts.