News & Insights

In Harris v. Superior Court, a class of insurance claims adjusters sued their employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”), for violating Wage Order 4-2001 by misclassifying them as exempt under the...

Today the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant, the long-awaited case which has important implications for the workplace about whether California law (1) requires employers to “ensure” that employees take...

The California Supreme Court held that aggrieved employees are not entitled to recover their attorney’s fees in lawsuits to obtain pay for missed meal and rest breaks. The Court also banned employers from recovering...

Summary of Decision In Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 2012 WL 1979266 (Cal. Ct. App. June 5, 2012), the California Court of Appeal upheld the use of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. Such...

On August 9, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in State of Calif. v. Continental Ins. Co., et al., a closely-watched insurance coverage dispute in which several major liability insurers, supported by...

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court issued a critical decision regarding break and off-the-clock claims and the standards governing an employer’s obligation to...

On September 25, 2012, United States District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill, District of Connecticut, issued the first decision allowing a plaintiff’s whistleblower allegations against his employer under the Dodd-Frank...

Since the U.S. Supreme Court came down with its landmark decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion in April 2011, the legality of individual arbitration agreements has been a hot topic in the employment realm. In...

The New Requirements Effective January 1, 2013, employers paying sales commission to California employees must enter into written employment agreements with the employees. Labor Code section 2751 previously required...

...

On February 7, the California Supreme Court decided the issue of whether the federal “mixed motive” defense applies to employment discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). By way...

On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court clarified the definition of supervisor in employee harassment cases under Title VII. In Vance v. Ball State University, the Court held that only an employee who “is...