Labor & Employment Law Blog

As we previously reported here  and here, on November 7, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law effective January 1, 2012, Assembly Bill 469, sponsored by State Assembly Member Sandre R Swanson (Dem. Oakland), known as the "Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011." Effective January 1, 2012, the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 subjects California employers to new notice and record keeping requirements and to additional penalties for failing to comply with various provisions of the California Labor Code.  

As we previously reported here, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made rules which required private sector employers across the country to post a Notice of Rights. This Notice provided a listing of employee rights under federal labor law including the right to form and join unions, to discuss and protest working conditions, and to refrain from such activity. Management groups sued the NLRB in an effort to block the rules and stop the mandatory Notice posting.

The California Supreme Court's recent and eagerly awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court we summarized here has received a great deal of deserved attention, but there are a number of other cases pending before the court of significance to California employers in a variety of industries. Those pending cases include the following:

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court addressing employers' obligations to authorize and permit non-exempt employees to take required rest periods, employers' obligations  to provide to non-exempt employees required meal periods, and related issues concerning class action litigation of rest period claims, of meal period claims, and of "off-the-clock" work claims. While the decision does bring welcome clarity to some of the issues, we think the decision leaves unanswered the important question of precisely what an employer must do to meet its obligation to "provide" required meal periods, and we think the decision is a mixed bag for employers in some respects.

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that ...

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods. This was good news for employers and especially good news to numerous employers defending against claims of alleged meal period violations.  

AALRR Partner Thomas Lenz’s Article, ’Occupy’ at the Workplace, was featured in the April 2012 issue of California Lawyer in the magazine’s column on social media. The article may be read here. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed a test for determining whether an employee who is engaged in activities which are protected by the National Labor Relations Act loses that protection by engaging in overly confrontational and inappropriate conduct toward his or employer.In the recent case of Plaza Auto Center v. NLRB, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NLRB misapplied ...

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed a test for determining whether an employee who is engaged in activities which are protected by the National Labor Relations Act loses that protection by engaging in overly confrontational and inappropriate conduct toward his or employer. In the recent case of Plaza Auto Center v. NLRB, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NLRB misapplied this test in ordering an employee who engaged in such conduct to be reinstated to his job as a used car salesman in Yuma, Arizona.

On February 9, 2012, the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the California Secretary of Labor announced a collaborative relationship between the agencies to target independent contractor misclassification. The DOL and the California Secretary of Labor signed a memorandum of understanding that touts the agencies’ focused “efforts on protecting the rights of employees.”