Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Kao v. Joy Holiday

Wage-and-hour requirements cannot be avoided by classifying an alien who has not yet received his work visa as a "trainee" where the company derives benefits from his efforts. In determining whether an employee is salaried, as opposed to hourly, nonmonetary benefits may not be considered in determining if recompense is at the minimum level for salaried employees.

Kao v. Joy Holiday - filed June 15, 2017, First District, Div. Three
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 3108
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire District

A political subdivision of a State need not have 20 or more employees in order to qualify as an employer subject to the requirements of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire District - filed June 19, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-15030

For More Information Contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Monday, June 12, 2017

Heimlich v. Shivji

Party was not required to present his Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998 request for costs to an arbitrator before the arbitration award was rendered, because an offer which is not accepted "cannot be given in evidence upon the trial or arbitration." In the course of his request to confirm the arbitration award, party established that the arbitrator had refused to hear any evidence of opposing party's rejection of Sec. 998 offer. Party timely presented his Sec. 998 claim to the arbitrator, the arbitrator should have reached the merits of that claim, and the arbitrator's refusal to hear evidence of the Sec. 998 offer warranted partially vacating the arbitration award.

Heimlich v. Shivji - filed May 31, 2017, Sixth District
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 2743 

For More Information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

DiCarlo v. County of Monterey

Longevity performance supplement negotiated between county and union representing deputy sheriffs did not constitute compensation reportable to CalPERS as special compensation and was thus not properly included in benefits calculation.

DiCarlo v. County of Monterey - filed May 24, 2017, publication ordered June 5, 2017, Sixth District
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 2879

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton

A benefits plan established by an organization whose "principal purpose" is religious qualifies as a "church plan" under ERISA, no matter who started it.

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton - filed June 5, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 16-74_5i36

For More Information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lennig)

Employer's admission of vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee did not bar claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact with regard to its claim for punitive damages. Retention of driver after four preventable accidents did not constitute malice or oppression where the accidents were not serious. While evidence regarding driver's citation for failing to wear a seat belt raised an issue of lack of fitness, punitive damages were unavailable in the absence of evidence that a managing agent of defendant had "advance knowledge" of the citation.

For More Information Contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. - filed May 8, 2017

Labor and Employment Law
Labor Code Secs. 551 and 552 guarantee workers a day of rest for each workweek. Periods of more than six consecutive days of work that stretch across more than one workweek are not per se prohibited. The Sec. 556 exemption to Secs. 551 and 552 for employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the workweek. An employer causes its employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled. An employer is not forbidden from permitting or allowing an employee, fully apprised of the entitlement to rest, independently to choose not to take a day of rest.

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. - filed May 8, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 2372

For More Information Contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
There was an error in this gadget