The California Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 (“Martinez”) sets forth the law which governs the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship exists in the context of a wage claim. In Martinez the California Supreme Court defined an “employer” as one who, directly or indirectly, or through an agent or…
Under California law, if an employer fails to keep adequate records, employees suing to recover wages can meet their burden of proof simply by testifying that they performed work for which they have not been properly compensated. They do not have to prove the precise hours worked. They need only produce sufficient evidence to show…
Many employers mistakenly believe that if they pay a “salary” to an employee then they do not have to pay that employee overtime pay. Employers – this is NOT correct! Many employees who are paid a salary are also entitled to receive overtime pay. If an employee is paid a salary, that employee is still…
California minimum wage increased from $8.00 per hour to $9.00 per hour effective July 1, 2014. Effective January 1, 2016, minimum wage will increase to $10.00 per hour. [AB 10]
California Labor Code Section 226.8 provides that employers can be penalized $5,000 to $25,000 “per violation” for intentionally misclassifying employees as independent contractors. When employees are misclassified and employers do not provide wage deduction statements to the misclassified employee, then the employer will be subject to additional penalties under Labor Code section 226.3. Section 226.3…
Effective January 1, 2014, Employers who prevail in a wage claim can only recover its fees and costs if it can establish that the employee’s wage claim was brought in “bad faith.” [SB 462]
Effective January 1, 2014, California Labor Code Section 98.6 prohibits employers from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant because the employee or applicant has exercised rights protected under the Labor Code. Employers who violate this new law are subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. Unless the…
Effective January 1, 2014, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, employees who assert claims of sexual harassment is not required to show that the harassment is motivated by sexual desire. A sexual harassment claim can be based on sexually offensive conduct or statements that are unrelated to sexual desire. (SB 292)
The California Supreme Court in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. S204804, __ Cal. 4th __ (July 14, 2014) held that an employer CANNOT attribute commission wages paid in one pay period to other pay periods in order to satisfy California’s commissioned sales person exemption. The court reasoned as follows: “[A]n employer satisfies…
When litigating overtime claims, employers must assert any applicable exemptions as an affirmative defense, and the employer has the burden of proof to prove that the employee was exempt from being entitled to receive overtime pay: “[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the…
