|California Supreme Court Issues Long-Awaited Decision Regarding Administrative Exemption|
Leila Narvid, Rodney B. Sorensen; Payne & Fears LLP;
January 6, 2012, previously published on January 2012In 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 administrative category. Following the trial court’s grant of...
|California Enacts New Law Prohibiting Willful Misclassification of Independent Contractors|
Alisha M. Louie, Leila Narvid, Rodney B. Sorensen; Payne & Fears LLP;
October 14, 2011, previously published on October 2011On October 9, 2011, Governor Brown signed legislation that prohibits the willful misclassification of individuals as independent contractors. The new law, which takes effect January 1, 2012, adds two new sections to the California Labor Code, sections 226.8 and 2753. Under section 226.8(a), it is...
|California Court of Appeal Holds Undocumented Workers Cannot Pursue Discrimination and Retaliation Employment Claims|
Leila Narvid, Leila Narvid, Rodney B. Sorensen, Rodney B. Sorensen; Payne & Fears LLP;
August 25, 2011, previously published on August 2011In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Court of Appeal held that an employee not authorized to work in the United States could not pursue discrimination and retaliation employment claims. The court reasoned that the undocumented worker had no recourse for alleged losses tied to an...
|The California Supreme Court Permits Older Worker to Pursue Age Claim against Google|
Paul David Herbert, Leila Narvid, Rodney B. Sorensen; Payne & Fears LLP;
August 25, 2010, previously published on August 2010In Reid v. Google, Inc., the California Supreme Court decided two questions, one procedural and one substantive, which will have a substantial impact on an employer’s ability to defeat employment litigation via use of a summary judgment motion. First, the Supreme Court found that the trial...
|U.S. Supreme Court Finds Employer’s Review of Employee Text Messages Reasonable Under the Circumstances|
Rodney B. Sorensen; Payne & Fears LLP;
July 6, 2010, previously published on June 22, 2010The United States Supreme Court held in City of Ontario v. Quon that the review of a police officer’s text messages sent using an employer-issued pager did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. While the decision was a victory for the employer, the Court noted that emerging technologies...
|Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Signed Into Law by President Obama|
Rodney B. Sorensen, Stephen K. Robinson, Leila Narvid; Payne & Fears LLP;
March 5, 2009, previously published on February 2009In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), the United States Supreme Court ruled that employees cannot bring discrimination claims for disparate pay if the decisions that resulted in the disparate pay occurred outside of the 180 (or 300) day statute of limitations,...
|California Court of Appeal Rejects Punitive Damages for Labor Code Violations|
Rodney B. Sorensen, Andrew K. Haeffele; Payne & Fears LLP;
January 23, 2009, previously published on December 2008Plaintiff Christine Brewer ("Plaintiff"), a waitress at the Cottonwood Golf Course Restaurant ("Cottonwood"), filed suit against Cottonwood, alleging age discrimination and Labor Code violations related to meal breaks, rest breaks, pay stubs, and minimum wage.
|California Legislature Clarifies Overtime Pay Exemption for Computer Professionals|
Rodney B. Sorensen, Stephen K. Robinson; Payne & Fears LLP;
November 18, 2008, previously published on October 2008Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 10, which was classified as an "urgency" bill, on September 30, 2008.
|California Employers Await Definitive Answer from California Supreme Court on Meal and Rest Break Obligations|
Rodney B. Sorensen, Leila Narvid; Payne & Fears LLP;
November 18, 2008, previously published on November 2008On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review of and de-published Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.4th 25 (2008), an important recent decision that addressed employee meal period and rest break requirements under California law.
|FEHA Statute of Limitations Subject to Equitable Tolling|
Rodney B. Sorensen, Lisa J. Lin; Payne & Fears LLP;
November 18, 2008, previously published on November 2008The plaintiff in McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District, a job applicant for a library administrative staff position, repeatedly applied for a position with the defendant, a community college, but was turned down.