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 ...

On August 12, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling that requires California employers to reimburse their employees a “reasonable percentage” of their cell phone bill when they are required to use their personal cell phones for work-related purposes.  (Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., Case No. BC449547.)

This decision arises out of a putative class action filed against Home ...

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 August 15, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1034 (“SB 1034”), which, effective January 1, 2015, repeals the 60-day waiting period limit imposed on certain health insurance plans in California.  2012 legislation, Assembly Bill 1083 (“AB 1083”), imposed a 60-day waiting period limit effective in 2014, which conflicted with the federal Affordable Care Act’s ...

The San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) took effect August 13, 2014.  The Ordinance limits use of criminal conviction information in hiring and employment in a trend informally referred to as “Ban the Box” legislation.

The Ordinance (San Francisco Policy Code, Article 49 and Administrative Code, Article 12) (the "Ordinance") mostly builds upon existing California law, making ...

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 ...

On July 21, 2014, the California Court of Appeal soundly rejected attempts by an employee in a proposed class action to challenge an employer’s practice of deducting partial-day absences from the leave banks of exempt employees, including partial-day absences in increments of less than four hours.  Rhea v. General Atomics (“Rhea”).  In this decision, the court not only confirmed that California law permitted the deduction of partial-day absences from the leave banks of exempt employees, but also clarified that such deductions may occur in any increment of time.

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled that closely held for-profit corporations may object to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) mandate to offer health insurance with access to certain contraceptive methods under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).  In a 5-4 decision, the Court found that corporations are protected under the RFRA, as an extension of the protection of the ...

On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that three recess appointments President Obama made in 2012 to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) were invalid.  The Court affirmed the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, focusing on the language of the Recess Appointment Clause of the Constitution, which it weighed against the historical ...