In California, Employers are not required to provide their employees with paid or unpaid vacation time. However, if an employer does have an established vacation policy to provide paid vacation, then certain restrictions are placed on the employer as to how it fulfills its obligation to provide vacation pay. California law provides that earned paid…

California Labor Code section 515(d) provides that for the purpose of computing the overtime rate of pay to a nonexempt full time salaried employee, the employee’s regular hourly rate shall be 1/40th of the employee’s weekly salary.    Section 515(d) further provides that a fixed salary to a nonexempt employee is for the employee’s non-overtime hours…

California Labor Code Section 980 prohibits employers from requiring or requesting that an applicant or employee to:    (1) Disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media;    (2) Access personal social media in the presence of the employer; or    (3) Divulge any personal social media to the employer….

Effective Date New Minimum Wage Old Minimum Wage Amount of Increase Percentage of Increase Over Previous Minimum Wage January 1, 2016 $10.00 $9.00 $1.00 11.1 percent July 1, 2014 $9.00 $8.00 $1.00 12.5 percent January 1, 2008 $8.00 $7.50 $0.50 6.7 percent January 1, 2007 $7.50 $6.75 $0.75 11.1 percent January 1, 2002 $6.75 $6.25…

The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 becomes effective July 1, 2015, and requires all California employers to provide their employees with at least 3 days (24 hours) of paid sick leave per year. Further, the new law applies to all employees (non-exempt, exempt, temporary, part-time, and seasonal) who work in California 30 days…

On January 1, 2015 Assembly Bill 1897 goes into effect. AB 1897 amends Labor Code section 2810 by creating a new Labor Code section 2810.3. The new law targets employers that use labor contractors (i.e. staffing agencies). Specifically, once AB 1897 becomes effective, private employers will be unable to deny liability for labor contractor’s failure…

In Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16585 (9th Cir., Aug. 27, 2014), the Ninth Circuit held that under California’s Right-To-Control Test, the FedEx drivers were “employees” and not independent contractors.  Specifically, the court found that FedEx controlled the manner and means by which the drivers completed their jobs, and…

In Castaneda v. The Ensign Group (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held that a “corporation with no employees [that] exercises some control over [a] corporation with employees, [] may be the employer of the employees of the corporation it owns.” The Court found that there were triable issues of…

Labor Code section 2802 obligates an employer to indemnify its employee for the necessary expenditures or losses incurred as a direct consequence of the employee’s discharge of his or her duties, including the obligation to indemnify an employee who is sued by third parties for conduct that was within the course and scope of employment (i.e. paying any judgments and attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the action. However, the Court in Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Chen held that Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to indemnify a former employee in an unsuccessful first party suit by the employer against the former employee. The Court left open the possibility of indemnification pursuant to Corporations Code section 317, which provides that a corporation must indemnify its agent if the agent is  successful on the merits in defending against an action by the…

California Labor Code section Section 2802 provides, in pertinent part, “(a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,…