Employment Law Blogs
Keeping you up to date.
Let Hackler Flynn Law keep you up to date on new California employment laws and regulations. We post frequently to keep our clients up to date so be sure to check back often or sign up for our newsletter.
Do you let your employees sit down at work? You may be required to… Having employees sitting down on the job may no longer be something that employers frown upon, but may in fact be a legal requirement, under California law. A nine-year legal battle over the provision of seating to cashiers ended in Walmart paying out a $65 million dollar settlement in early October 2018. The settlement also resulted in a promise on the part of the Company to begin providing seating to cashiers. At the heart of the case is the provision in California’s Industrial Welfare Commission’s
The Future of Human Resources Companies seem to be following two paths when it comes to their HR departments and functions. The first path is toward greater outsourcing and automation. The second path is almost the opposite - toward reintegration of HR and management, with managers taking a more active role in employee development. The first type - companies that seek to outsource HR functions - are commonly small businesses, although not always. Outside businesses such as Application Service Providers (ASPs) or Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs) offer HR services. ASPs are companies that provide and host software applications that
Performance Improvement Plans: What Are They, and When Should You Use Them? The internet is filled with articles claiming that Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) are essentially a joke. That they are designed to “improve” nothing, but are actually meant to signal to everyone involved that this employee is going to be fired. Many commentators, including employers and executives, view PIPs as a simple CYA. That is, a document, that the employee signs, that they employer can later use to prove the employee was fired for his or her own failings, and not due to any discrimination or retaliation by
Ninth Circuit Vacates Jan-Pro; Certifies Dynamex Retroactivity to the California Supreme Court On July 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated its decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. May 2, 2019). The May Jan-Pro decision had held that the “ABC” test for independent contractor status mandated in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), applied retroactively. This ruling was expected to have a sweeping impact on California’s economy, as businesses who had hired independent contractors to serve in their principal business found themselves open to misclassification lawsuits by their
Ninth Circuit Ruling: Dynamex is Retroactive This May, in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. May 2, 2019), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the California Supreme Court’s landmark independent contractor decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), applies retroactively. This means that companies who classified their workers as independent contractors pre-Dynamex, based on the pre-Dynamex legal standard (the multi-factor test in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 38 Cal. 3d 341 (1989)), are now vulnerable to misclassification lawsuits.. Background on Jan-Pro’s
Compensable Time Before and After Work: California Supreme Court to Decide Key Cases Most California employers know by now that employees must be paid for all time worked. But there are several types of pre- and post-shift tasks that could qualify as “time worked.” California law holds that employers must pay for this time, but some activities fall within a legal gray area. Getting to the Worksite: When Is Travel to Work - By Bus or By Foot - Compensable? An employer who provides bus transportation from a set location to the worksite and who makes that transportation mandatory