Labor & Employment Law Blog

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 ...

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a franchisor, such as Domino’s Pizza, LLC., can be held vicariously liable for claims of alleged sexual harassment by an employee of a franchisee, such as an individually owned Domino’s Pizza store.  The court framed the issue as follows:  “Does a franchisor stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding it vicariously liable for workplace injuries allegedly inflicted by one employee of a franchisee while supervising another employee of the franchisee?”  The court held a franchisor is not vicariously liable for claims of alleged workplace torts by employees of a franchisee unless. . . .

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 ...

As we previously reported, most employers in California are subject to the workplace seating requirements contained in the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, which regulate wages, hours, and working conditions in specified industries and as to specified occupations. Wage Orders 1-13 and 15 all contain the following seating requirements:

In Jesus Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc., plaintiff that alleged he and other purported class members were not paid for all hours worked because the employer rounded employee’s start times in 29 minute increments such that an employee clocking in at 7:31 a.m., would be paid only from 8:00 a.m., onward; that the employer excluded non-discretionary bonuses from the calculation of employees’ overtime rates and thereby improperly depressing the employees’ overtime wages; that the employer willfully failed to pay to employees at the time of termination all wages due and owing and is therefore subject to “waiting time” penalties; and that the wage statements the employer issued to the employees did not accurately state all hours worked and all applicable rates of pay and is therefore subject to wage statement penalties.

In perhaps the first case to employ jury instructions based on the California Supreme Court’s recent holding in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that a plaintiff alleging discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) must prove that discrimination was a “substantial factor” motiving the challenged action of the employer and not just a factor, in Rodriguez ...

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision that significantly impacts the ability of employees to prove their employment discrimination claims and recover damages under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  In Harris v. City of Santa Monica (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC341469), a bus driver alleged the City of Santa ...

On August 31, 2012, AALRR attorneys Irma Rodriguez Moisa and Sharon J. Ormond obtained a unanimous jury defense verdict in favor of The Regents of the University of California after a 14-day jury trial.  The Plaintiff, James Friedman, was laid off from his position at the University of California at Los Angeles in April 2010 after a reorganization of his unit resulted in his position being eliminated.  He ...