Labor & Employment Law Blog

Hopefully, most employers are aware of California's laws requiring employers to reasonably accommodate an employee who desires to express milk for the employee's infant child. In a nutshell, California Labor Code sections 1030 and 1031 require an employer to provide a reasonable amount of break time to accommodate an employee's desire to express milk for her infant child and to provide the employee the use of a room or other location that is not a bathroom stall to express milk in private. The room or other location can be the room or location where the employee works if it provides sufficient privacy.

On July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one an 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. 

In Arzate v. Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc., a wage and hour class action case brought by members of the Teamsters Union who own and operate their own trucks against defendant Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc., a common carrier engaged in the business of transportation, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that whether the plaintiffs were employees of defendant, and not independent contractors, was a triable issue of fact. 

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo is pleased to announce that nine attorneys have been named to the 2011 edition of Southern California Super Lawyers: Steven D. Atkinson, Michael J. Baker, Helen R. Frazer, Edward C. Ho, Thomas W. Kovacich, Irma Rodríguez Moisa, Mark T. Palin, Robert R. Roginson, and Robert L. Wenzel.

In another case brought by the Ralph’s grocery chain challenging the enforceability of California’s anti-labor injunction statutes, a California appellate court held on January 27, 2011 that Labor Code Sections 527.3 and 1138.1 are unconstitutional because they grant greater free speech rights in “public forums” to unions engaged in labor disputes than are allowed to others. In Ralphs Grocery Co. v. U.F. C. W. Local 8, the court overturned an order denying a preliminary injunction to Ralph’s based on the application of those statutes, which severely limit the ability of courts to issue injunctions during labor disputes and impose onerous requirements on private property owners which seek to enjoin union, picketing on their premises.

Is the fiancé of an employee who has made a sex discrimination charge against her employer protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal anti-discrimination law? Yes, said the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Thompson v. North American Steel decided January 24, 2011.

The case was filed by Eric Thompson, who was terminated three weeks after his bride-to-be Miriam Regalado filed a charge with ...

In Travato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., the California Court of Appeal issued a decision potentially helpful to employers defending claims of alleged harassment and/or alleged retaliation, holding that the plaintiff's claims were time barred because she failed to present them within one year of the last alleged bad act and holding there was no evidence to support application of the continuing violations doctrine, which, under some circumstances, can save claims that would otherwise be time-barred. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as recently faced with a question of first impression under the federal Workers’ Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act — whether  employees who leave a job because a business is closing have “voluntarily departed” within the meaning of the statute. In Collins v. Gee West Seattle, LLC issued January 21, 2011, the court answered the ...

As we reported here, the California Court of Appeal recently issued a decision holding that an "aggrieved" employee can seek against his or her current or former employer penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 penalties for failing to provide to employees as required by an applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") wage order. Specifically, In Home Depot U.S.A., v. Superior Court, which also involved the provisions of Wage Order 7-2001 stating the all working employees “shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits” such use, the California Court of Appeal again held PAGA penalties can be awarded for violations of IWC wage orders. In so holding, the court rejected Home Depot's contention that PAGA penalties are not available for violation of the wage order because PAGA penalties are available for violations of the Labor Code "except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided," and the wage order contains its own civil penalty provisions (in lesser amounts than those provided by PAGA). In response to that argument, the court held Wage Order 7-2001 does not specifically provide a civil penalty for violation of the wage order's seating requirements. Further, the court noted that the civil penalty provision of the wage order states its penalties are "'[i]n addition to any other civil penalties provided by law,'" which the court interprets to mean the the wage order "does not purport to establish a comprehensive scheme of penalties for violations of the wage order."