Page 6 - Wage Orders News Today

Friday, July 16, 2021 HIGHLIGHTS OF FERRA V. LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC Premiums for noncompliant meal, rest, and recovery periods must be paid at the “regular rate of pay” rather than the base hourly rate. The decision applies retroactively, and the statute of limitations for meal and rest break liability is up to four years. California employers whose workforce includes nonexempt employees who receive incentive pay, such as nondiscretionary bonuses, commissions, piece rate compe...

atlases. 17 U.S.C. § 101.  To be sure, very few of the works for which independent contractors are hired fall into one of these enumerated categories.  Where rights are purportedly transferred using a WMFH Clause, ownership of a work that does not qualify as a WMFH would thus remain with the independent contractor.  In such situations, the second mechanism – assignment – is required to shift ownership to the employer. Assignments Copyright is freely transferable so long as the transfer ...

In Donohue, the employer used a timekeeping system that rounded employees time punches for meal periods to the nearest 10-minute increment. For example, if an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 a.m. and clocked in after lunch at 11:25 a.m., the system would record the time punches as 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., showing a 30 minute meal period, even though the actual meal period was only 23 minutes. Conversely, if an employee clocked out for lunch at 10:55 a.m. and clocked in after lunch at...

[co-author: Clinton Ford, Jr.] On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling addressing legal standards for meal period violations in 1 In its opinion, the court required strict compliance for providing meal periods, and specifically condemned the practice of rounding to the nearest time increment for meal periods. The court also clarified that a rebuttable presumption of liability applies when time records show shortened, delayed, or missed meal per...

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling addressing legal standards for meal period violations in 1 In its opinion, the court required strict compliance for providing meal periods, and specifically condemned the practice of rounding to the nearest time increment for meal periods. The court also clarified that a rebuttable presumption of liabil...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: Over the last decade, courts have permitted California employers to use timekeeping policies that round employee time punches (e.g., to the nearest 10th of an hour) if the rounding policy is facially neutral and used in a manner that will not result over time in the failure to compensate employees properly for all time actually worked. However, whether rounding can be similarly used for California meal period compliance purposes has b...

Last week, in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court handed down a very important, if unsurprising, decision regarding wage and hour class actions. There are three critically important takeaways for employers: An employer cannot round employee meal period punches — only exact time will work, as any non-compliance (even as minor as one minute) will trigger liability to pay a meal period premium. Rounding the start time of an employee’s shift is also functionally prohibi...

California Supreme Court Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC can employers engage in the practice of rounding time punches for meal periods & can records lacking facially compliant meal period raise rebuttable presumption of meal period violations

Let Me Tell You What It’s All About Jan-Pro Franchising, International, Inc. is a franchisor whose franchisees offer cleaning and janitorial services. In Vazquez v. Jan- Pro (“ Vazquez”), in May 2017, the Northern District of California granted Jan-Pro summary judgment in a case brought by independent contractor franchisees claiming they should have been treated as Jan-Pro employees. The plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the app...

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that the worker friendly “ABC” test set forth by the Court in its 2018 landmark ruling, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, applies retroactively. The ABC test thus applies to all pending cases governed by the California Wage Orders in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc. The Facts Jan-Pro Franchising, International, Inc...