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

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

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

Safety for Employees in the Workplace

An employee is protected against discharge or discrimination for complaining in good faith about working conditions or practices which he reasonably believes to be unsafe, whether or not an actual law was being violated. Labor Code § 6310; Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 299–300; Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 87; Freund v. Nycomed Amersham (9th Cir. 2003) 347 F.3d 752, 759; Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 109. Thus, it is immaterial if the practice was actually unsafe or whether there was an OSHA standard that was actually being violated. The employee need only have complained in good faith about the working conditions or practices.

READ MORE



Tags

  • 29 C.F.R. § 541.108
  • Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys. Inc.
  • Alonzo v. Maximus Inc.
  • 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.
  • Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
  • AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
  • Augustus v. ABM Security Services Inc.
  • Avilez v. Pinkerton Government Services
  • Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp.
  • 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.
  • Brennan v. Elmer’s Disposal Serv. Inc.
  • Brinker
  • Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct.
  • Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
  • Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group Inc.
  • 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. § 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
  • Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc.
  • Caliber Bodyworks Inc. v. Superior Court
  • Cicairos v. Summit Logistics Inc.
  • Civ. Code § 338(a)
  • class action certification
  • class arbitration
  • Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp.
  • communications with class members
  • Criado v. IBM Corp
  • Diaz v. Fed. Express Corp.
  • Dietrick v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc.
  • Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC
  • Do v. Superior Court
  • Donovan v. Crisostomo
  • Donovan v. New Floridian Hotel Inc.
  • employee status
  • F.W. Stock & Sons Inc. v. Thompson
  • FAA
  • Fair Labor Standards Act
  • 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
  • Gardner v. Shell Oil Co.
  • Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
  • Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon
  • Gilb v. Chiang
  • 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
  • Hanlon
  • Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
  • 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)
  • 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
  • I. E. S. Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
  • independent contractor
  • Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court
  • Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell
  • Instacart
  • Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S. Inc.
  • IWC Wage Order No. 4
  • IWC Wage Order No. 5
  • Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA Inc.
  • Jeske v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation
  • Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp.
  • Labor Code
  • Labor Code § 1102.5
  • Labor Code § 1102.6
  • Labor Code § 1194(a)
  • 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 §§ 201 and 203
  • Labor Code §§ 201-203
  • Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512
  • Labor Code §§ 6400-6403
  • Labor Code §1194 (a)
  • Labor Code §6401
  • Labor Code §6402
  • Labor Code §6403
  • Leuthold v. Destination America Inc.
  • Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co
  • LWDA
  • Martinez v. Combs
  • Mayle v. Felix
  • McLaughlin v. Ho Fat Seto
  • meal breaks
  • Mills v. Joshua Hendy Corp.
  • misclassification
  • Moran v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County
  • Morton v. Valley Farm Transp. Inc.
  • motion to compel arbitration
  • Murphy v. Kenneth Cole
  • Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.
  • off the clock
  • Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport Inc.
  • Pacesetter Sys. Inc. v. Medtronic Inc.
  • PAGA
  • penalties
  • Plaisted v. Dress Barn Inc.
  • predominance
  • premium wages
  • Price v. Starbucks Corp.
  • Prilliman v. United Air Lines inc.
  • 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.
  • Rother v. Lupenko
  • Rubin v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
  • Sanchez v. Swissport Inc.
  • Sav-On Drug Stores
  • settlement
  • Smith v. Marsh
  • Starving Students Inc. v. Department Of Industrial Relations
  • Stolt-Nielsen
  • 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
  • Townsend v. Superior Court
  • typicality
  • U.S. v. Ewald Iron Co.
  • 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. 211(c)
  • Wage Order 4-2001
  • Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange Inc.
  • Wang v. Chinese Daily News Inc.
  • White v. Davis
  • Widjaja v. YUM! Brands Inc.
  • Williams v. Marshall
  • Willner v. Manpower Inc.
  • Yokoyama