Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro

Whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.

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

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat'l. Ass'n.

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat'l. Ass'n. (CA1/1 A148817 1/17/18) Wage & Hour/Class Certification

In our second encounter with this class action case, plaintiffs Samuel Duran and Matt Fitzsimmons appeal from the trial court’s order denying class certification.  This case is a wage and hour class action challenging whether defendant U.S. Bank National Association (Bank) had properly classified its business banking officers (BBOs) as exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption.  This exemption applies to employees who spend more than 50 percent of their workday engaged in sales activities outside their employer’s place of business.  The trial court concluded plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the case is manageable as a class action.  We affirm.

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

Monday, January 15, 2018

ABM Industries Overtime Cases

In determining a witness' qualifications to serve as an expert, the determinative issue in each case must be whether the witness has sufficient skill or experience in the field so that his testimony would be likely to assist the jury in the search for the truth. Once this threshold has been met, questions regarding the degree of an expert's knowledge go more to the weight of the evidence presented than to its admissibility. In determining whether to grant class certification, a trial court abused its discretion in disregarding the plaintiffs' proffered expert evidence of common practice, rather than accepting it for what it was and weighing it against the existence of any individualized inquiries that might properly have defeated plaintiffs' request for class certification.

ABM Industries Overtime Cases - filed Dec. 11, 2017, publication ordered Jan. 10, 2018, First District, Div. Four
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 180

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

Golden Eagle Land Investment, L.P. v. Rancho Santa Fe Association

A defendant's communications with county land use authorities on the subject of governmental entitlement applications constitutes protected activity for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.

Golden Eagle Land Investment, L.P. v. Rancho Santa Fe Association - filed Jan. 12, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 211

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

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health

A defendant abused the protections of the anti-SLAPP law by filing a special motion to strike a complaint which alleged no acts arising from a protected activity, based on the defendant's beliefs that the plaintiff's claims were really predicated on a theory of liability which was unstated.

Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health - filed Jan. 9, 2018, First District, Div. Two
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 143

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

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Kramer v. Cullinan

A public official was entitled to qualified immunity for releasing a letter concerning the termination of an employee where the letter did not accuse the terminated employee of any bad faith, willful misconduct, intentional acts, waste or fraud, since the letter was not "stigmatizing." Even if the content were stigmatizing, it was not clearly established law that charges other than fraud, dishonesty, and immorality would trigger the requirements of a name-clearing hearing.

Kramer v. Cullinan - filed Jan. 3, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 14-36103

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

Stirling v. Brown

Military and Veterans Code Sec. 56 is unambiguous and its plain language does not require the governor to undertake the procedures required of the inspector general in response to a whistleblower allegation. Sec. 56 does not violate California's equal protection clause because in all cases a whistleblower allegation is referred to an impartial decision maker who has discretion whether to undertake a full investigation.

Stirling v. Brown - filed Jan. 4, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 59

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
There was an error in this gadget