Labor & Employment Law Blog

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which will make it easier for employees to establish discrimination under Title VII of the U.S Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (USSC Case No. 22-193), the Court held that an employee need only show that an employment action brought about "some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment," as opposed to "materially significant disadvantage” in those terms or conditions. The Court expressly acknowledged that this is a less burdensome standard than those which had been adopted by federal appellate courts in the past, and that "many cases will come out differently" under this new standard. 

Is a staffing employer required to immediately pay final earned wages to a temporary employee whose assignment ends as a result of their being terminated by a client employer but where the temporary employee remains an employee of the staffing agency?  No, held a California Court of Appeal in the recent case of Young v. REMX Specialty Staffing No. A165081, 2023 WL 3331378, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. May 10, 2023).

On September 2, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, delivered a rare victory for California construction employers in Jerome Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation (2022) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, Dkt. No. B312736.  At its core, this case shows how qualifying employers can—and should—take advantage of California’s construction industry exemption from the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).

On March 29, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling involving the State’s prevailing wage law, holding for the first time that the law’s requirements could be applied to employees who performed work for a private employer under a contract with a sanitation district.  (Kaanaana v. B. Bus. Servs., Inc., No. S253458, 2021 WL 1166963 (Cal. Mar. 29, 2021))  Prior to this decision, the law had generally been interpreted to apply only to construction work pursuant to a contract entered into with a public entity.

On February 8, 2021, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision clarifying the circumstances under which a per diem benefit must be included in the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The court held that since per diem benefits functioned as compensation for work rather than as reimbursement for expenses incurred by traveling healthcare clinicians, they were improperly excluded from the clinicians’ regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay under federal law. Clarke v. AMN Servs., LLC (9th Cir., 2021) No. 19-55784, 2021 WL 419473.

On January 4, 2021, a California appellate court held an employer waived its right to enforce an arbitration agreement against a truck driver who filed a wage and hour class action against it, by waiting almost twenty months after the case was filed to make an arbitration demand.  The court held that the delay was unjustified because the employer’s conduct in defending the case in court for that period of time was inconsistent with its right to arbitrate and because such delay prejudiced the employee’s ability to use the benefits and efficiencies of arbitration. Garcia v. Haralambos Beverage Co., No. B296923, 2021 WL 22015 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2021).

Recently, a California Court of Appeal held that crew members on a ship that provided maintenance services to offshore oil platforms were governed by California’s wage payment laws.  The decision, in the case of Gulf Offshore Logistics v. Superior Court, held that the State’s laws applied to such employees because California served as the basis for their operations, even though they resided in other states and their employer was located in Louisiana.  Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Superior Court of Ventura Cty., WL 7137048 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2020).

The City of Long Beach, California enacted a new supplemental paid sick leave ordinance on May 19, 2020, which is effective immediately.  The ordinance applies to employers with 500 or more employees nationally and excludes those who are required to provide paid sick leave benefits under the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act. 

In Anthony v. TRAX International Corp. (April 17, 2020, Case No. 18-15662), the Ninth Circuit held the limitation of using after-acquired evidence to merely mitigate damages did not extend to evidence used to show that an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) plaintiff is not a qualified individual, an element of a prima facie case of disability discrimination.

On March 19, 2020, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance for employers on responding to legal concerns under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) arising out the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic.  The guidance, What You Should Know About the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and COVID-19, addresses common employer concerns about what medical inquiries an employer can make, when it can ask employees to leave the workplace based on such concerns, and under what circumstances an employer can ask for a doctor’s release from such employees before allowing them to return.  Among the key components of the guidance are the following: