In a Second District of California Court of Appeal case in Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc.(CA2/8 B247080 1/30/15), the court reviewed the appeal of Plaintiff and appellant Wilfredo Velasquez appealed from a judgment after jury trial of his product-related personal injury action.  Velasquez alleged his lung disease was caused by workplace exposure to a chemical compound, diacetyl, that […]

The California Supreme Court granted a petition for review of a misclassification case decided the Court of Appeal. This case presents the following issue: In a wage and hour class action involving claims that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors, may a class be certified based on the Industrial Welfare Commission definition of employee […]

Under an ordinance providing that certain hotels’ service charges must be paid to hotel workers “equitably and according to the services that are or appear to be related to the description of the amounts given by the hotel to the customers,” and defining “hotel worker” to mean any individual whose primary place of employment is […]

Richey v. Autonation, Inc. (SC S207536 1/29/15) Arbitration/Honest Belief Defense An employer terminated an employee who was absent on approved medical leave, but engaged in outside employment in violation of company policy.  After an 11-day arbitration hearing, the arbitrator relied on the federal “honest belief” defense and rejected the employee’s claim that the employer violated the […]

Security Guards – Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (California Supreme Court, January 8, 2015) 2015 DJDAR 277. The California Supreme Court held security guards were owed regular and overtime pay for all time required to be at the worksite, including sleeping time. The wage order language interpreted does not apply to the public housekeeping industry or […]

A California Court of Appeal recently held that, under California Labor Code § 2802, employees who must use personal cell phones for work are entitled to reimbursement for “some reasonable percentage” of the personal cell phone bill.  The holding states the current law in California that employees who use their personal cell phones for work are […]

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) broadly protects employees that are disabled from discrimination in the workplace. The provision of the California statute that protects disabled persons, prohibits employment discrimination not only based on the employee being actually disabled, but also when the employee is “regarded as” disabled. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) […]

In California employers must give workers time off to eat meals at work. The law on meal breaks illuminated by a California Supreme Court’s case Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. Before Brinker, courts were divided over (1) whether an employer must merely make meal breaks available, or (2) whether the employer must actually […]

Under California law, an employer may require pre-employment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration when making employment decisions. Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920, 924. This rule of law also applies even in the case where an employee applicant is using medical marijuana pursuant to their physician’s recommendation. In Ross, the Plaintiff, […]

Under California law, an employer may require a medical or psychological examination of an employee if the examination is “job related and consistent with business necessity.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (f)(2).)  Further, an employer also “may make disability-related inquiries, including fitness for duty exams, and require medical examinations of employees that are both job-related and […]