Labor & Employment Law Blog

The state and federal courts in California continue to closely scrutinize employment arbitration agreements even though they remain a favored means of resolving disputes.  This was evident in the recent case of Ashbey v. Archstone Property Management, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an employee effectively waived his right to a judicial forum for his Title VII claim and ...

On September 2, 2014, a California appellate court upheld an order requiring a college math professor to undergo a “fitness for duty examination” (“FFD”) based on behavior that his colleagues considered erratic and threatening in nature.  The court also rebuffed the efforts of the professor’s attorneys to interject themselves into the workplace dispute by placing conditions on the FFD.  The ...

On July 14, 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled that commission payments made in one pay period may not be used in another pay period to satisfy minimum payment requirements under the California commissioned employee exemption. Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (California Supreme Court).

On July 21, 2014, a California appellate court ordered a real estate agent of a brokerage firm to arbitrate his claim that he was improperly classified as an independent contractor and not an employee.  Galen v. Redfin Corporation. The court held that the Scott Galen’s claims for unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate and untimely wage statements, waiting time penalties, and ...

A California Court of Appeal struck down yet another employment arbitration provision, based on lack of notice to the employees, and an attempted modification to the agreement after the plaintiffs’ claims accrued and the plaintiffs’ complaint was filed.

In Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., six employees sued Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., an operator of four hospitals in ...

The trucking industry has a special history with respect to the employment status of its drivers.  Those who own or lease their own rigs prefer to view themselves as owner-operators.  They may work principally for one carrier or can work for multiple carriers in different parts of the country.  This tradition runs so deep that even Teamster Union contracts have had special carve-outs for the owner operator.  Over time, the growth of the industry into different carrier modalities, from interstate freight to web based consignment package delivery, has changed the opportunities for drivers and the economic model for the shippers.  Still, the independent contractor model has remained resilient across the industry, despite numerous legal challenges.

In Carr Finishing Specialist, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 165 (9/28/12), the NLRB ruled that a contractor that was signatory to an Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Iron Workers Union remained bound to a newly-negotiated agreement when the company did not timely revoke the authority it gave to multiemployer bargaining association to negotiate on its behalf.

In the past several months, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a series of decisions that could affect everyday policies that union and non-union employers maintain in the workplace. The decisions are summarized below.

As employers increasingly consider adopting mandatory arbitration agreements for employment disputes following last year’s Supreme Court decision upholding class arbitration waivers in Concepcion, there is an increasing need to review old agreements and policies contained in Employee Handbooks to ensure that they do not render such attempts futile. Nowhere was this demonstrated more clearly than in the recent decision in Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services, issued on July 31, 2012, in which the court denied the enforcement of a policy requiring arbitration because of its inclusion in a handbook which contained general language permitting an employer to change its terms unilaterally and stating that it was “not an agreement.”

As we previously reported here, a report issued by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, shows that employment cases were the most frequently filed class actions, representing 29.3% of the class actions filed and that over half of the employment cases filed alleged violations of Labor Code provisions governing payment of wages, rest and meal periods, and related claims. This is consistent with our experience representing numerous employers against such class action lawsuits.