Labor & Employment Law Blog

Many employers require employees to acknowledge in writing the employee’s receipt of a notice or memorandum of discipline when workplace discipline is imposed. In Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the California Court of Appeal held: (1) it is lawful for an employer to require an employee to sign such an acknowledgement, (2) an employee’s refusal to sign such an acknowledgement form when lawfully presented to the employee is “misconduct” as that term is defined in Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256, and (3) such “misconduct” is grounds for denying unemployment insurance benefits to an employee who is terminated for refusing to sign a discipline acknowledgement form lawfully presented to him or to her.

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.”

Recently, the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) amendments that, among other things, broaden the military family leave provisions and incorporate new eligibility requirements for airline flight crew employees. Comments to the proposed rule are due 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Many employers understandably seek to regulate employees' use of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to communicate about the employer or about workplace issues. As we previously reported here, for example, the National Labor Relations Board has recently determined in several cases that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act either by adopting policies the NLRB considers to be an ...

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.

On June 14, 2010, AALRR attorneys Matthew D'Abusco and Sun Hi Ahn, who are both members of AALRR's Employer Services Practice Group, represented at trial in the Orange County Superior Court Equestrian Services, II. On June 22, 2010, the court granted judgment in favor of Equestrian Services, II, and against the defendant on causes of action for breach of contract, for trespass, for open book account, and for unjust enrichment. The court also issued a permanent injunction against the defendant, and awarded costs. As the prevailing party in the case, Equestrian Services, II., will be entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. 

Issues of whether the President has validly appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board panel in Washington, DC continue to develop.  One recess appointment, Terrence Flynn, announced his resignation in late May, effective in July 2012.  Mr. Lenz was contacted by influential online legal publication www.law360.com for commentary identifying issues which have arisen with the composition of ...

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.

Many employers have attempted to require current and former employees to pursue claims individually and not by way of class action lawsuits by requiring employees to agree to arbitrate individually whatever claims they might have.

Today, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the California Supreme Court put to rest the issue of whether either side--a plaintiff employee or a defendant employer--can be awarded attorney's fees under Labor Code sections 1194 or 218.5 when it prevails on a claim for alleged meal or rest period violation penalties under Labor Code section 226.7. The court held today that neither Labor Code section 1194 nor Labor Code section 218.5 apply to a claim for meal or rest period violation penalties under Labor Code section 226.7. For reasons we explain below, we think this common sense decision is a major victory for California employers, and we think this decision has the potential to dramatically alter the landscape of wage and hour class action litigation in California.