http://www.elinfonet.com/starticles/5 Articles discussing workplace law in California. Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:07:59 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2333 Article: 2333 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On July 1, 2008, the long awaited California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act finally goes into effect. The new law prohibits drivers over age 18 from using handheld wireless telephones while driving, unless the device allows for hands-free listening and talking. Drivers under the age of 18 will be prohibited from using wireless telephones altogether, even if employing a handsfree device, and from using “mobile service devices” such as Blackberries,a pagers and laptops. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2322 Article: 2322 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The economic downturn results in increased layoffs and business closings. Employers must consider whether they are required to give legally required advance notice of these events. Federal law includes the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, known as WARN. However, California employers may be covered by an analogous state law, informally known as the "baby" WARN Act. Labor Code Sections 1400-1408. Both laws require employers to give advance "notice" to affected employees and certain government entities of future employment losses. These laws' purpose is to give workers time to seek new employment, and to facilitate the government's programs for the unemployed to absorb a large influx of unemployed workers. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2318 Article: 2318 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The courts have issued a significant number of retaliation decisions in the past several weeks. The U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases that employees are protected from adverse employment actions for complaining about civil rights violations, even when the underlying statutes did not contain anti-retaliation provisions. Two panels of the California Court of Appeal went in different directions regarding what constitutes “retaliation.” http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2316 Article: 2316 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) As most affected employers are aware, California recently became the second state (after Massachusetts) to recognize same-sex marriages. In In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and is a form of unconstitutional discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law also invalidated California’s Proposition 22, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2303 Article: 2303 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In March a California court awarded more than $105 million to Starbucks baristas due to the company's practice of permitting supervisors to share the tips. The case is significant to all California employers that have tip-sharing arrangements. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2302 Article: 2302 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) California law sets out basic overtime requirements for non-exempt employees in California. Among other things, the law requires an employer to pay an employee time and one-half of the employee's regular rate of pay for both 1) more than 8 hours of work in one workday, and2) more than 40 hours of work in any workweek. A double time premium is required for hours in excess of 12 in a work day, or in excess of 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2300 Article: 2300 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, the California Supreme Court held that individual officers, directors and shareholders of a corporation have no personal liability to the corporation’s employees for unpaid overtime. Following Reynolds, the California Court of Appeal recently held in Bradstreet v. Wong (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1440, that individual owners, officers and managers of three closely-held corporations could not be held personally liable for the corporation’s failure to pay owed wages to employees or for related California Labor Code violations. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2299 Article: 2299 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Employers sued in California wage and hour class actions are all too familiar with the State’s “multiplier effect.” What is the California “multiplier effect,” you ask? Simply put, it is a small wage payment violation (e.g., for non-payment of overtime hours or off-the-clock work), that can trigger a range of penalties under the California Labor Code far exceeding the value of the original unpaid wage amount. In wage and hour class actions, minor wage violations can cost employers millions. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2298 Article: 2298 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Beginning July 1, 2008, drivers in California will be prohibited from using hand-held cell phones while driving. Hands-free devices, such as a Bluetooth or other earpiece, will be legal to use while driving as long as only one ear is covered. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2297 Article: 2297 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Complying with Health Privacy Laws; Are Layoffs on the Horizon?; AB 1825 Training: Consequences of Failing to Comply; Summer Heat; COURT WATCH;