In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California Court of Appeal answered a question that many California employers may not have known even needed to be answered—whether California employees can prospectively waive their mandatory meal periods. Given the almost universal use of such waivers by employers (based on the assumption that the waivers are
California Court of Appeal Issues Warning to Employers with Unlimited Paid Time Off Policies
California is like every other state in that it does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off. Unlike in most other states, however, if an employer does provide employees with paid time off, then employees have a vested right in such time. What this means is that employers are prohibited from enacting “use it or lose it” paid time off policies. It also means that upon separation, California employers must pay out employees for any unused paid time off.
Due to these requirements, and to remain competitive with other employers, some employers have instituted “unlimited” paid time off policies whereby employees do not accrue any specific amount of vacation time but, rather, are free to take (or not take) as much (or as little) vacation as they want. The commonly held belief amongst most employers is that such unlimited paid time off policies benefit employees by providing them with flexible schedules while, at the same time, allowing employers to avoid the obligation to pay out any unused paid time off upon separation. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation (McPherson), the California Court of Appeal issued a shot across the bow to employers adhering to this commonly held belief by holding that the unlimited paid time off policy at issue did obligate the employer to pay out unused paid time off upon termination.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Issues Warning to Employers with Unlimited Paid Time Off Policies
California Court of Appeal Significantly Broadens the Scope of Employees Entitled to Reporting Time Pay
Many classes of California workers are entitled to “reporting time pay,” which is partial compensation given to employees who go to work expecting to work a certain number of hours but are deprived of working the full time due to inadequate scheduling or lack of notice by the employer. Prior to the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Skylar Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. most employers understood that such pay was only required if the employee physically appears at the workplace. In that decision, however, the Court of Appeal told those employers that they were wrong.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Significantly Broadens the Scope of Employees Entitled to Reporting Time Pay
California Employers: Ignore Piece-Rate Compensation Rules at Your Peril
A recent California Court of Appeal decision upheld the state’s complex rules for compensating piece-rate employees. In Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor & Workforce Dev. Agency, 2019 Cal.App. LEXIS 10 (Cal.Ct.App. Jan. 4, 2019), the Court held that the Labor Code’s requirement that piece-rate employees be separately compensated for “nonproductive time” was not
California Court of Appeal Calls into Question the Validity of Employee Non-Solicitation Provisions
California Business and Professions Code section 16600 invalidates any contract restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business. While this language has been understood to prohibit non-compete agreements, it was generally understood that it still permitted employee “non-solicitation agreements,” which are agreements preventing former employees from poaching employees from their former employers.