Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., — Cal. — (2020) Summary: The time employees spent on Apple’s premises waiting for and undergoing a mandatory exit search of personal belongings was compensable as “hours worked”...
Category: News/Alerts
Clear Filters
Last week, the Court of Appeal gave a victory to non-contracted providers of emergency medical services. In San Jose Neurospine v. Aetna Health of California, the court rejected Aetna’s position that because the...
February 29, 2020
Ninth Circuit Confirms (Again): Employers Cannot Rely on Prior Pay to Justify Gender Pay Disparities
In April 2018, the Ninth Circuit held that employers cannot consider pre-employment salary history, even in combination with other factors, to justify gender pay disparities. See Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018)...
Minority attorneys continue to depart law firms at a higher rate than those in the majority and continue to be substantially underrepresented at the partner level. With the continued demands of clients and other organizations...
Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured”...
February 19, 2020
You Can’t Ask This: The Spread of Salary History Bans and What It Means for Employers
A growing number of state and local governments across the country are enacting laws that limit employers’ ability to ask about or consider applicants’ salary history. These laws are part of a nationwide effort to reduce...
February 14, 2020
California Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent Undergoing Exit Searches Constitutes Compensable “Hours Worked”
On February 13, 2020, in a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court held in Frlekin v. Apple Inc., Case No. S243805, that time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches...
Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020) The employer must pay minimum wages to employees for time spent on mandated layovers where the employer’s policy imposes constraints on employees’ movements during...
February 10, 2020
California Supreme Court Resolves Split in Authority By Affirming Grande Decision and Disapproving Castillo
Update June 30, 2022: On June 30, 2022, in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, Nos. E068730, E068751, discussed...
February 3, 2020
Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State’s Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements
Update Feb. 21, 2023 On Feb. 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court’s preliminary injunction on the grounds that AB 51 is preempted by the FAA. For more on that decision, please see our...
January 8, 2020
NLRB Holds Employers May Restrict Company Email Systems for Non-Work Related Reasons
On December 16, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision in Caesars Entertainment holding that businesses may restrict employees from using a company’s internal email systems for union and...
This month’s key California employment law cases involve disability discrimination, wage and hour, and arbitration agreements enforcement. Doe v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, No. E071224, 2019 WL 6907515...