Arbitration agreements in employment agreements may not be enforced, absent special care given by employers when hiring employees.

In light of the recent decision in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co, California employers should look closely at the identification provided by employees during the hiring process whenever an employee pursues claims for discrimination or retaliation relating to any termination or failure to hire.

California employers may now be able to lean a little more on the “learned professional” exemption when facing an employee’s claim that he or she should have been treated as “non-exempt” for payroll purposes.

The Supreme Court held that it is unlawful to terminate an employee who made oral complaints about his employment, the anti-retaliation statute applies both to written and oral complaints.

Employers that think they can’t be held liable for anti-military animus or other discrimination in the workplace caused by supervisors with only limited authority should think again in light of the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital.

An employer that learns of harassing behavior from a third party must take immediate and appropriate action to correct the situation.

Under certain circumstances, an injured person working in your home can file a civil lawsuit against you as the homeowner, rather than being limited to workers compensation. A recent California Supreme Court decision held that this is the case and defined the standard of care to be used in a case brought by an injured employee working on a homeowner’s substantial remodeling project. (Cortez v. Abich (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 285.)

Over the last several years courts have been narrowing an employer’s ability to restrict employee activities after termination, culminating with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Authur Andersen LLP.

In California, an employee that works more than five hours a day must be provided with a meal break of not less than 30 minutes. (IWC Orders; Labor Code Section 512.)  A second meal break of not less than 30 minutes is required if the employee works more than ten hours a day.  (Labor Code [...]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s termination two days after he complained to his employer’s HR office raised a triable issue of material fact based on circumstantial evidence that he was subject to retaliatory termination and that the employer’s stated reason for his termination was a mere pretext.

To the surprise of one local employer, a class action labor and employment attorney alleged that their pay stubs failed to include the required information. With the opposing attorney specifying damages at the statutory maximum of $4,000 for each of their 250 employees, the employer was faced with a potential $1M liability.