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

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

  • 29 C.F.R. § 541.108
  • 29 C.F.R. 785.15
  • 29 C.F.R. 785.16
  • 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
  • AB 2257
  • AB 5
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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. Labor Code §98.6(a)
  • Caliber Bodyworks Inc. v. Superior Court
  • California Family Rights Act
  • California Labor Code §1102.5
  • California Labor Code §226.7
  • CFRA
  • Cicairos v. Summit Logistics Inc.
  • Civ. Code § 338(a)
  • 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)
  • 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.
  • employee status
  • 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
  • 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
  • Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine Ltd.
  • Gilb v. Chiang
  • Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries Inc.
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • 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 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
  • Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp.
  • Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
  • Lab. Code §1102.5(c)
  • Labor Code
  • Labor Code § 1102.5
  • 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 §6401
  • Labor Code §6402
  • Labor Code §6403
  • Leuthold v. Destination America Inc.
  • Lewis v. Wells Fargo & 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
  • Mills v. Joshua Hendy Corp.
  • misclassification
  • Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Service Inc.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Salazar v. U.S. Department of Justice
  • Sanchez v. Swissport Inc.
  • Sav-On Drug Stores
  • SB 1383
  • settlement
  • Seymore v. Metson Marine Inc.
  • Smith v. Marsh
  • Soules v. Cadam Inc.
  • Spitzer v. Good Guys Inc.
  • 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
  • Willner v. Manpower Inc.
  • Wilson v. County of Orange
  • Yokoyama