Page 11 - Wage Orders News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

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 compensation, or shift differential pay should revisit the rate at which meal and rest period premiums ar...

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 is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed.  17 U.S.C. §§ 201, 204.  Although ...

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 11:34 a.m., the system would only show a 30 minute meal period even though the actual meal period ...

[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 periods. In Donahue, the plaintiff filed a class action against her employer for failure to pay premiu...

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 liability applies when time records show shortened, delayed, or missed meal periods. In Donahue, the plai...