Recently indexed
Analysis of new laws and key decisions in California wrongful-termination and employment law.
-
Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc.
An EMT sought to certify a 135-worker class alleging the employer left nondiscretionary “EMS Bonuses” out of the regular rate, underpaying overtime and premiums.…
-
People v. Uber Technologies: Rideshare Drivers Are Likely Employees Under Prong B of the ABC Test
The Court of Appeal affirms a statewide preliminary injunction against Uber and Lyft, holding the People likely to prevail under prong B of the…
-
Castellanos v. State of California: The Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22 and Holds the Legislature’s Article XIV Workers’-Compensation Power Is Not Exclusive of the Initiative
The California Supreme Court unanimously upholds Proposition 22 (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7451), holding that the Legislature’s “plenary” and “unlimited” authority over workers’…
-
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services (Naranjo II): A Good-Faith Belief in Compliance Defeats Section 226 and Section 203 Penalties
In Naranjo II (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056, the California Supreme Court holds that an employer’s objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that its wage statements complied…
-
Martinez v. Combs: The Wage Orders Define “Employer” — Control, Suffer or Permit, or Common-Law Engagement
Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 holds that the IWC wage orders’ own definitions govern who is an “employer” for minimum-wage claims: to…
-
Augustus v. ABM Security Services: Rest Periods Must Be Off-Duty and Off-Call
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257 holds that a compliant rest period must be free of both duties and employer…
-
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
The section 226.7 meal/rest payment is a wage (premium pay), not a penalty, and is therefore governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable…
-
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court: Provide, Not Ensure — California’s Governing Meal-and-Rest and Class-Certification Decision
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 is California’s foundational meal-and-rest decision: an employer must provide a duty-free meal period but…
-
Troester v. Starbucks Corp.: California Rejects the Federal De Minimis Rule for Off-the-Clock Work
Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829 holds that California has not adopted the federal de minimis doctrine: an employer that requires small…
-
Donohue v. AMN Services: No Rounding of Meal-Period Punches, and a Rebuttable Presumption From Time Records
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 holds that employers may not round meal-period time punches, and that time records showing short,…