Publications Archives

California Supreme Court Holds No Wage Recovery in PAGA Claims

By: Kyle D. Kring and Kerri N. Polizzi

On September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court in ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711, firmly held that employees cannot collect unpaid wages under the Private Attorneys General Act (commonly known as "PAGA"). This surprising decision curtails one avenue PAGA plaintiffs and their attorneys used as a workaround when faced with enforceable arbitration agreements containing class action waivers.

As Expected, Govenor Newsom Immediately Signed Assembly Bill 5 Which Now Affects Independent Contractor Classification

By: Huy M. Tran and Kerri N. Polizzi

The following is an update from our article last week. [http://www.kringandchung.com/blog/2019/09/california-legislature-passes-new-bill-affecting-independent-contractor-classification.shtml]

On September 16, 2019, Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) was enrolled and placed on Governor Newsom's desk. As predicted, on September 18, 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB-5 in a private ceremony in his state Capitol office.

California Legislature Passes New Bill Affecting Independent Contractor Classification

By: Huy M. Tran and Kerri N. Polizzi

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, the California legislature passed a landmark bill known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) that will reshape many companies' ability to classify workers as independent contractor. Most notably, the bill directly targets Uber and Lyft's classification of their drivers. AB-5 is now en route to the desk of Governor Newsome, whose signature would solidify the new law.

California Governor Extends Sexual Harassment Training Requirement Deadline

By: Tyler D. Kring

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 778 on August 30, 2019, amending Government Code Section 12950.1. The Governor's signature extends the deadline for California employers to comply with sexual harassment training requirements for non-supervisory employees from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021.

As you may recall, fellow Associate Kerri N. Polizzi published an article titled "Getting a Jump Start on Compliance with California's Growing Sexual Harassment Training Mandate" explaining SB 1343's new requirements for employers with five (5) or more employee to provide at least two (2) hours of sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and gender harassment training to all supervisory employees, and one (1) hour of such training to all non-supervisory employees.

Racial Discrimination Based on Hairstyle Now Prohibited in California

By: Tyler D. Kring

On nearly a daily basis, our firm analyzes claims related to alleged "discrimination" in the workplace. Routinely, we must clarify the difference between what an individual believes to be discrimination and what California labor law says is illegal discrimination.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") enforces laws that protect individuals from illegal discrimination and harassment in the workplace through the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). In order to be considered illegal, FEHA requires that such discrimination be based off an individual's actual or perceived protected category. For quite some time, such protected categories were limited to ancestry, age, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex/gender, among a few others.

The Return of 'No-Match' Letters: How Employers Should Respond

By: Kyle D. Kring

The Social Security Administration ("SSA") has once again begun issuing employers "Request for Employer Information" letters, better known as "No-Match" letters (view sample letter here). The SSA sends no-match letters to those employers identified as having at least one name and Social Security Number ("SSN") combination submitted on Form W-2 that do not match SSA records.

Revisiting Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.; Whether California Employers May Require Non-Exempt Employees Remain On-Site During Rest Periods

By: Allyson K. Thompson

As our firm discussed in a previous publication titled California Prohibits On-Duty and On-Call Rest Periods, the Supreme Court of California ruled that employers may not require their employees to remain "on-call" during rest periods. The Court noted that, "state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods" and "during rest periods, employers must relieve their employee of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time."

Getting a Jump Start on Compliance with California's Growing Sexual Harassment Training Mandate

By: Kerri N. Polizzi

California employers with 50 or more employees have long been required to provide at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisors and managers. Specifically, since 2005 any employer with "supervisory authority" is required to be trained within six months of being hired to or promoted to a supervisory position and every two years thereafter.

Court of Appeal Rules That On-Call Workers Are Entitled to Reporting Time Pay

By: Kerri N. Polizzi

On February 4, 2019, a panel of the California Court of Appeal held in Ward v. Tilly's, Inc., that certain on-call scheduling practices require employees to "report to work" within the meaning of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, triggering compensation requirements even when no work is actually performed.

The case concerned employees of Tilly's, Inc. ("Tilly's") who were assigned "on-call" shifts that required time to call in two hours before their scheduled start time to determine whether they were actually required to come in to work that day. If the worker was in fact called in to work, Tilly's paid them for the entire shift. If, however, the employee calling in was told not to come in for the shift, he or she was paid nothing.

Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Nisei Farmers League Action

By: Kyle D. Kring

Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency is a piece-rate compensation case involving AB 1513 which we have been following and reporting on since it was originally filed.

Last Friday, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the Nisei Farmers League action challenging the constitutional validity of Labor Code section 226.2 (AB 1513) which went into effect on January 1, 2016 and requires separate payment for piece rate workers' rest breaks and non-productive time. The court concluded that Plaintiff, Nisei Farmers League failed to allege an adequate basis for finding the statute to be unconstitutional. As you may recall, Plaintiff Nisei Framers League had generally alleged that the statute was unconstitutionally vague as to the phrases "other nonproductive time" and "actual sums due." The legal standard the Plaintiff needed to prove was quite high. The court noted that "... a statute will be deemed to have a reasonable degree of certainty and thereby overcome a vagueness challenge 'if any reasonable and practical construction can be given its language of if its terms may be made reasonably certain by reference to its legislative history or purpose.'"

Premium Av Preeminent 5.0 out 5 Rating Peer Review Rated LexisNexis Martindale Hubbell Avvo Super Lawyers OC Metro Register
Contact

How Can We Help You?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Office Locations

Irvine Office
38 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606

Phone: 949-345-1621
Fax: 949-261-8800
Irvine Law Office Map

San Diego Office
411 Camino del Rio South
Suite 105
San Diego, CA 92108-3508

Phone: 949-345-1621
Phone: 858-436-0268
Fax: 858-436-0279
Map & Directions

Las Vegas Office
7575 Vegas Drive
Suite 150G
Las Vegas, NV 89128

Phone: 949-345-1621
Phone: 702-260-9500
Fax: 702-260-9434
Map & Directions