Employment Law Blog

The employment lawyers of Hoyer & Hicks handle cases involving wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, missed breaks, and unpaid wages in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles Area. This blog contains portions of our legal research and court submissions and updates about the ever-evolving field of employment law.


Recent Posts

January 2021 Employment Legislation

Starting in January 2021, there will be some new employment legislation going into effect. Here’s a little breakdown of some key things to know, as an employee.

READ MORE

Instacart Wage-and-Hour Settlement

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT Our firm filed a representative action on behalf of Aggrieved Employees and the State of California against Instacart in Santa Clara County in 2018: Ornelas v. Maplebear, Inc. (d/b/a lnstacart), case no. 18CV323046. Based on our client’s experiences, we alleged that lnstacart’s timekeeping app deleted employees’ hours worked on cancelled jobs and failed […]

READ MORE

Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Under the “ABC Test” established by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a worker is an employee if any of the following conditions are met:

READ MORE

Wage and Hour Class Action Mediation Brief

Section 510 of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order require employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond eight in a day and forty in a week (and double-time as provided in the statute and Wage Order).

READ MORE

Class Action Settlements in California

The well-recognized factors that a trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of the value of a class action settlement agreement include, but are not limited to:
[T]he strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.

READ MORE

Break Laws and Class Action Procedure

Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders require employers to authorize and permit meal periods to their employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes.

READ MORE

California Law: Class Action Suits & Missed Meal/Rest/Break Periods

Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders require an employer to authorize and permit meal and rest periods to their employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes. “[A]n employer’s obligation is to provide an off-duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30–minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1035 (2012). “An employer must relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period.” Id. at 1034. An employer cannot “impede or discourage [employees] from [taking off-duty rest periods].” Id. at 1040. Section 226.7 and applicable wage orders also require employers to authorize and permit employees to take 10-minute rest periods for each four hours or major fraction thereof of work, and to pay employees their full wages during their rest periods. “[A]s a general matter,” one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break.” Id. at 1032. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal period and 10-minute rest period, the employee is considered “on duty” and the meal or rest period is counted as time worked under the applicable wage orders. Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 264.

READ MORE

Mandatory Meal and Rest Periods

Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders requires an employer to authorize and permit meal and rest periods to its employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes, and from employing an employee more than ten hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes. “[A]n employer’s obligation is to provide an off duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30–minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1035 (2012). “An employer must relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period.” Id. at 1034. An employer cannot “impede or discourage [employees] from [taking breaks].” Id. at 1040. Section 226.7 and applicable wage orders also require employers to authorize and permit employees to take 10-minute rest periods for each four hours or major fraction thereof of work, and to pay employees their full wages during their rest periods. “[A]s a general matter, one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break.” Id. at 1032. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal period and 10-minute rest period, the employee is considered “on duty” and the meal or rest period is counted as time worked under the applicable wage orders. When an employer fails to provide a rest or meal period in accordance with the applicable wage orders, the employer must pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday that a required rest period is not provided, and one additional hour of pay for each work day that a compliant meal period is not provided. Labor Code § 226.7.

READ MORE

Exempt and Non-Exempt Employment in the Food Service Industry

California state laws require that all non-exempt employees be compensated at time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 8 hours per day and 40 hours in a week. See California Labor Code section 510(a) and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, Order No. 5-2001 section 3(A). The law also requires employers to maintain accurate time records for all of the hours worked by its employees, provide accurate itemized wage statements, authorize, permit and provide meal and rest periods, and pay all wages earned to an employee immediately upon their termination.

READ MORE



Tags

  • 18 U.S.C. §§1341
  • 29 C.F.R. § 541.108
  • 29 C.F.R. 785.15
  • 29 C.F.R. 785.16
  • 29 U.S.C. §216(b)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
  • AB 2257
  • AB 5
  • Abdulla v. U.S. Sec. Assocs.
  • Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys. Inc.
  • Alonzo v. Maximus Inc.
  • Alternative Workweek Schedule
  • Alvarez v. Hill
  • Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
  • Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.
  • Arakaki v. Cayetano
  • arbitration
  • Arias v. Superior Court
  • Armenta v. Osmose Inc.
  • Arredondo v. Delano Farms Co.
  • Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
  • AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
  • Augustus v. ABM Security Services Inc.
  • Augustus v. American Commercial Security
  • Avilez v. Pinkerton Government Services
  • Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp.
  • Barnett v. U.S. Air Inc.
  • Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co.
  • Benton
  • Beverly Hills Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
  • Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp.
  • Borello
  • Bradley v. Networkers International LLC
  • Brennan v. Elmer’s Disposal Serv. Inc.
  • Brewer v. Gen. Nutrition Corp.
  • Brinker
  • Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct.
  • Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
  • Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group Inc.
  • Bus. & Prof. Code§7028
  • C.C.P. § 2016.040
  • C.C.P. § 2023.010
  • C.C.P. § 2023.030(a)
  • C.C.P. § 2023.450(g)(1)
  • C.C.P. § 2025.010
  • C.C.P. § 2025.280(a)
  • C.C.P. § 2025.450(a)
  • C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)
  • C.C.R. § 11040
  • C.C.R. § 11160
  • C.C.R. § 13520
  • C.F.R. § 516.2(a)(7)
  • C.F.R. § 778.109
  • C.F.R. § 778.118
  • C.F.R. § 778.209
  • C.F.R. § 778.223
  • C.F.R. § 778.315
  • C.F.R. § 785.11
  • C.F.R. § 785.13
  • C.F.R. § 785.18
  • C.F.R. § 785.19(a)
  • C.F.R. § 790.21(b)(2)
  • C.F.R. §778.110(b)
  • C.F.R. §778.211
  • C.F.R. 785.19(a)
  • C.F.R. 785.19(b)
  • Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc.
  • Cal. Gov. Code §12926(n)(2)
  • Cal. Ins. Code §§1871
  • Cal. Labor Code §98.6(a)
  • Caliber Bodyworks Inc. v. Superior Court
  • California Family Rights Act
  • California Labor Code §1102.5
  • California Labor Code §1102.6
  • California Labor Code §226
  • California Labor Code §226.7
  • CFRA
  • Church v. Consolidated Freightways Inc.
  • Cicairos v. Summit Logistics Inc.
  • Civ. Code § 338(a)
  • Civil Code §1638
  • Civil Code §1639
  • Civil Code §3517
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • class action certification
  • class arbitration
  • Claudio v. Regents of University of California
  • Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030
  • Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(d)
  • Code Civ. Proc. 2025.420(b)(12)
  • Collins v. Rocha
  • Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp.
  • communications with class members
  • Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union
  • Criado v. IBM Corp
  • Dawn v. Sterling Drug Inc.
  • Department of Fair Employment and Housing
  • DFEH
  • Diaz v. Fed. Express Corp.
  • Dietrick v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc.
  • Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC
  • Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
  • DLSE
  • Do v. Superior Court
  • Donovan v. Crisostomo
  • Donovan v. New Floridian Hotel Inc.
  • Edwards v. City of Long Beach
  • employee status
  • Evidence Code §500
  • F.W. Stock & Sons Inc. v. Thompson
  • FAA
  • Fair Employment and Housing Act
  • Fair Labor Standards Act
  • Faulkinbury v. Boyd
  • Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates
  • Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 56
  • FEHA
  • FLSA
  • food service workers
  • Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.
  • FRCP 24(a)
  • FRCP 24(b)
  • FRCP 24(b)(1)(B)
  • FRCP 24(b)(3)
  • Freund v. Nycomed Amersham
  • Fry
  • Fry v. Hayt Hayt & Landau
  • Galanek v. Wismar
  • Gantt v. Sentry Insurance
  • Garcia v. Rockwell Internat. Corp.
  • Gardner v. Shell Oil Co.
  • Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
  • Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon
  • Gentry v. Super. Ct.
  • Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine Ltd.
  • Gilb v. Chiang
  • Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries Inc.
  • Gov’t Code § 12940(n)
  • Government Code § 12926.1(c)
  • Government Code § 12926(l)
  • Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co.
  • Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise Inc.
  • Hale v. Morgan
  • Hall v. Rite Aid Corp.
  • Hanlon
  • Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
  • Hanson v. Lucky Stores Inc.
  • Haro v. City of Los Angeles
  • Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp
  • Hentzel v. Singer Co.
  • Heritage Residential Care Inc. v. DLSE
  • Herman v. Hector I. Nieves Transport Inc.
  • Heyen v. Safeway (2013)
  • Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp.
  • Hill v. RL Carriers Inc.
  • Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling
  • Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Superior Court
  • Hoohuli v. Lingle
  • Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University
  • Huene v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury
  • Huntington Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court
  • I. E. S. Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
  • independent contractor
  • Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court
  • Industrial Welfare Commission
  • Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell
  • Instacart
  • Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S. Inc.
  • IWC Wage Order 0-2001 §4(A)
  • IWC Wage Order No. 16
  • IWC Wage Order No. 4
  • IWC Wage Order No. 5
  • IWC Wage Order No. 9
  • Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA Inc.
  • Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank
  • Jeske v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation
  • Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
  • Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp.
  • Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
  • Lab. Code §1102.5(c)
  • Labor Code
  • Labor Code § 1102.5
  • Labor Code § 1102.5(b)
  • Labor Code § 1102.6
  • Labor Code § 1194(a)
  • Labor Code § 1199
  • Labor Code § 200
  • Labor Code § 201(a)
  • Labor Code § 203
  • Labor Code § 203(a)
  • Labor Code § 203(b)
  • Labor Code § 204
  • Labor Code § 210
  • Labor Code § 221
  • Labor Code § 226
  • Labor Code § 226.3
  • Labor Code § 226.7
  • Labor Code § 226.7(c)
  • Labor Code § 226(a)
  • Labor Code § 226(e)(2)
  • Labor Code § 2698
  • Labor Code § 2699
  • Labor Code § 2699.3
  • Labor Code § 2699(e)(2)
  • Labor Code § 2699(f)
  • Labor Code § 2699(g)(1)
  • Labor Code § 2802
  • Labor Code § 510
  • Labor Code § 510(a)
  • Labor Code § 511
  • Labor Code § 512
  • Labor Code § 558
  • Labor Code § 6310
  • Labor Code § 6311
  • Labor Code § 6400
  • Labor Code § 98
  • Labor Code §§ 1174-1175
  • Labor Code §§ 201 and 203
  • Labor Code §§ 201-203
  • Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512
  • Labor Code §§ 6400-6403
  • Labor Code §1194 (a)
  • Labor Code §510
  • Labor Code §6401
  • Labor Code §6402
  • Labor Code §6403
  • Leuthold v. Destination America Inc.
  • Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co
  • Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.
  • Lowy Development Corp. v. Superior Court
  • LWDA
  • Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera
  • Martinez v. Combs
  • Mayle v. Felix
  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
  • McLaughlin v. Ho Fat Seto
  • meal breaks
  • Milan v. City of Holtville (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1028
  • Mills v. Joshua Hendy Corp.
  • misclassification
  • Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Service Inc.
  • Moran v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County
  • Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.
  • Morton v. Valley Farm Transp. Inc.
  • motion to compel arbitration
  • Murphy v. Kenneth Cole
  • Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.
  • Narayan v. EGL Inc.
  • National Council Against Health Fraud Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  • Oakland City Ordinance 5.64.040
  • Oakland Municipal Code 5.64.010
  • Oakland Municipal Code 5.64.040
  • Oakland Taxicab Ordinance
  • off the clock
  • Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport Inc.
  • Pacesetter Sys. Inc. v. Medtronic Inc.
  • PAGA
  • penalties
  • Phillip v. Mayo Clinic Arizona
  • Plaisted v. Dress Barn Inc.
  • Poland v. Chertoff
  • predominance
  • premium wages
  • Price v. McDonald’s Corp.
  • Price v. Starbucks Corp.
  • Prilliman v. United Air Lines inc.
  • Prillman v. United Air Lines Inc.
  • Private Attorneys General Act
  • Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc.
  • Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.
  • Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transport
  • Rivera v. Rivera
  • Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. G & G Fire Sprinklers Inc.
  • Roberson v. Danny Ontiveros
  • Robinson v. George
  • Rother v. Lupenko
  • Rubin v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
  • Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.
  • S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Dept. of Indust. Rel.
  • Salazar v. U.S. Department of Justice
  • Sanchez v. Swissport Inc.
  • Sarviss v. Gen. Dynamics Information Tech Inc.
  • Sav-On Drug Stores
  • Sav-On Drug Stores Inc. v. Superior Court
  • SB 1383
  • settlement
  • Seymore v. Metson Marine Inc.
  • Smith v. Marsh
  • Sotelo v. MediaNews Group Inc.
  • Soules v. Cadam Inc.
  • Spitzer v. Good Guys Inc.
  • Spitzer v. Good Guys Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376
  • St. John v. Employment Development Dept.
  • St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
  • Starving Students Inc. v. Department Of Industrial Relations
  • Stolt-Nielsen
  • Suckow Borax Mines Consol. v. Borax Consol.
  • Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.
  • superior method
  • Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
  • Tatkin v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
  • Tennessee Coal Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123
  • Thiebes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
  • Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management Inc.
  • tip pooling
  • Title VII
  • Townsend v. Superior Court
  • Turner v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.
  • typicality
  • U.S. v. Ewald Iron Co.
  • U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B)
  • U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
  • U.S.C. § 202
  • U.S.C. § 203
  • U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)
  • U.S.C. § 216
  • U.S.C. § 216(b)
  • U.S.C. § 255(a)
  • U.S.C. § 260
  • U.S.C. §§ 206 207(a)(1)
  • U.S.C. §§ 211(c) 215(a)(5)
  • U.S.C. §215(a)(3)
  • U.S.C. 211(c)
  • Wage Order 4-2001
  • Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange Inc.
  • Wang v. Chinese Daily News Inc.
  • Watkins v. Ameripride Servs.
  • White v. Davis
  • Widjaja v. YUM! Brands Inc.
  • Williams v. Marshall
  • Williams v. Russ
  • Willner v. Manpower Inc.
  • Wilson v. County of Orange
  • Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185
  • Yokoyama