Employer's "No Re-Hire" Provision may Violate California's Non-Compete Laws

Pretty much everyone knows that California courts do not favor covenants not to compete. We even have our own state laws that address this very issue (Business & Professions Code section 16600). But what about provisions in employment agreements, separation agreements, or even settlement agreements in which an employee agrees to give up his right to future employment with the company? Is that lawful? The Ninth Circuit just considered this very issue.  More ›

Oakland Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Requirements take Effect this Week

Employers in Oakland, California take note: A voter-approved measure raising Oakland's minimum wage and creating sick leave requirements for workers in the City went into effect this week. If you have employees in Oakland, review your policies and practices to make sure you are in compliance! More ›

Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act of 2014, California's Paid Sick Leave Law, to take Effect

—Starting July 1, 2015, California will join numerous other states in requiring employers provide employees with paid sick leave pursuant to the Health Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. More ›

California Employers Beware: cell Phones Present Another area for Class Action Potential

In August 2014, the California State Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Division 2) decided in Cochran v. Schawan's Home Service that employers were responsible for reimbursing employees for the business use of personal cell phones. Most cell phone users have unlimited minute plans so the question before the court was whether reimbursement was warranted even if the employee did not incur an extra expense. The answer: reimbursement is always required. The California Supreme Court has denied a petition to review this case so this holding stands. Employers with employees in the state of California should be mindful of this decision and take steps to implement policies which comply with the law (e.g., provide company cell phones, provide for reimbursement of actual cell phone usage for business-related calls, or provide a flat amount of reimbursement per month per employee).

Hinshaw attorneys are available to assist employers implement and enforce such policies.

California Supreme Court Issues key Arbitration Ruling

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, No. S174475 (October 17, 2013), holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California's rule categorically prohibiting waiver of a Berman hearing in a pre-dispute arbitration agreement imposed on an employee as a condition of employment. More ›

Changes to Employment laws in California

California employers, take note! The laws are changing! Just this week, new laws have been enacted which affect employees and/or employers, including: More ›

San Francisco Employers may be Required to Consider flex work Arrangements

On October 1, 2013, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve new legislation which requires employers in San Francisco to consider and potentially accommodate employees' requests for work schedule changes in order to address caregiving issues. Employers with 20 or more employees would be subject to the law, if enacted, and would have to accept requests from employees for flexible work hours, job-sharing, telecommuting, or other flexible work arrangements. Employers would only be permitted to deny the request if there is a "good faith business reason" for the rejection. What that means, however, remains to be seen. More ›

California Court: Arbitration Agreement does not Override Statutory PAGA Rights

Non-exempt hourly auto workers filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of various wage and hour laws, and sought penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The employees had, however, executed the employer’s Employee Dispute Resolution Plan, which provides that all employment-related disputes must be submitted to mediation and arbitration. Employees waived any right they had to pursue, file, participate in, or be represented in disputes filed on a class basis or as a collective or representative action, and the agreement prohibited mediation or arbitration of disputes on a class basis or as a collective or representative action. More ›

California Court Decertifies wage, Break Claims due to lack of Commonality

Home delivery newspaper carriers brought suit against the publisher for violations of the California Labor Code, arguing that they were not paid overtime wages, the proper minimum wage, and did not receive rest breaks, among other things. Specifically, the carriers claimed that they were improperly classified as independent contractors, though they were actually more akin to employees, and thus should have received the benefits of being an employee (such as receiving overtime wages). More ›

California Court Finds Compensation Scheme does not meet Salary Basis test, Denies Exemption

The California Court of Appeals recently considered whether a compensation scheme which is based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, may be considered a “salary” within the meaning of wage and hour laws.  More ›