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.”

Recently, the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.

Recently, the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States declined review of local ordinance language requiring supermarkets to keep their workforce for 90 days when a new owner takes over the business. Such ordinance language has become commonplace, for example, with hotel and other service industries specified by ordinance in some Bay Area cities. Contractors performing federal work face ...

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States declined review of local ordinance language requiring supermarkets to keep their workforce for 90 days when a new owner takes over the business. Such ordinance language has become commonplace, for example, with hotel and other service industries specified by ordinance in some Bay Area cities. Contractors performing federal work face similar ...

As we previously reported 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.  Some of the new requirements now in effect that require action on the part of affected employers are as follows: 

As we previously reported 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.  Some of the new requirements now in effect that require action on the part of affected employers are as follows:

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.

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.

As previously reported here, in late August, the National Labor Relations Board confirmed the approval of a final rule which requires all employers under NLRB jurisdiction to post a Notice which will inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Today, the NLRB agreed to postpone the date employers will be required to post this notice from January 31, 2012 to April 30, 2012. The ...

Other AALRR Blogs

Recent Posts

Popular Categories

Contributors

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Back to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.