Featured on Employment Law This Week: The California Supreme Court has clarified the state’s ambiguous “day of rest” provisions.
The provisions state that, with certain exceptions, employers will not cause “employees to work more than six days in seven.” The state’s high court addressed three questions about this law that had been certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court determined that employees are entitled to one day of rest per workweek. So, every Sunday marks the beginning of a new seven-day period. Additionally, the court clarified ...
It is no secret that California’s wage-hour laws are complex and often raise questions that employers, employees and the courts struggle with. As we wrote here more than a year ago, faced with questions regarding California’s ambiguous “day of rest” laws, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw up its hands and asked the California Supreme Court to clarify those laws.
Among the questions to be answered was one that impacts a great many employers, particularly those in the retail and hospitality industries – does the requirement that an employee be provided a “day of ...
A new “comp time” bill that would dramatically change when and how overtime is paid to private sector employees in many, if not most, jurisdictions has passed the House of Representatives. And unlike similar bills that have been considered over the years, this one might actually have a chance of passing. If it can get past an expected Democratic filibuster in the Senate, that is.
“Comp time” – short for “compensatory time” – is generally defined as paid time off that is earned and accrued by an employee instead of immediate cash payment for working overtime hours.
Since 2000, the number of wage and hour cases filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has increased by more than 450 percent, with the vast majority of those cases being filed as putative collective actions. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), employees may pursue FLSA claims on behalf of “themselves and other employees similarly situated,” provided that “[n]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.” Despite the prevalence of FLSA ...
On April 3, 2017, a federal district court in New Jersey rejected the National Labor Relation Board’s (“NLRB”) D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil holdings and upheld employee waivers of class and collective arbitration. In dismissing wage and overtime claims brought by an employee of Chili’s Grill & Bar, District Judge Noel Hillman ruled that such mandatory arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act. Cicero v. Quality Dining, Inc., et al, 1:16-cv-05806 (April 3, 2017).
Judge Hillman noted the issue was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- U.S. Department of Labor Issues Final Overtime Rule Raising Salary Thresholds
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on New York Meal and Rest Periods
- D.C. Expands Coverage of Minimum Wage Law
- Epstein Becker Green’s Free Wage-Hour App Includes Updates on New 2024 Laws
- Wage War: Massachusetts Trial Court Rejects Globe Ex-President’s Profit-Sharing Claim Disguised as Wage Act Violation