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/
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
