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.
Vendor Compliance and Joint Employer Liability: How to Make Sure Your Vendor’s Employees Don’t Become Yours Many employers choose to “outsource” a portion of their labor force to vendors, contractors, or staffing agencies. Vendor employees can include janitors, technicians, data entry clerks, and all manner of temporary workers. If your company contracts with vendors to provide any workers for your business, do not simply assume you have no responsibility for these workers’ wages and hours under the California Labor Code. Depending on the relationship between you and the vendor’s workers, you could be liable as a “joint employer” in a
The California Supreme Court’s landmark decision The California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) drastically limited the types of employees who could lawfully be independent contractors. Less than a year later, there have been real-world effects on industries like hairdressing, trucking, and…. Stripping. Yes, stripping. Many exotic dancers had been working as independent contractors rather than as employees. But last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Dynamex decision has removed strippers’ ability to choose whether they want to remain independent contractors. LA Times Story ABC Test Under
Complications for Employers of In-Home Caregivers More Contractor Complications: Duffey v. Tender Heart and In-Home Caregivers California law regarding independent contractors has been evolving rapidly ever since the California Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent last summer in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). This caused complications for employers of in-home caregivers. That case further restricted employers’ ability to classify hourly-paid, non-exempt workers as independent contractors. However, it was also intended to apply to those workers covered by the IWC Wage Orders, with their requirements for overtime, meal and rest breaks, etc. Duffey v. Tender Heart
California Employers Now Owe Reporting Time Pay for On-Call Shifts On February 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeal found that a retailer owed its employees for “on-call shifts” where they never came in to work. Irvine-based retail chain Tilly’s told their employees to call in two hours before a shift to find out if they were needed. The court in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., No. B280151, found Tilly’s owed reporting time pay for the time employees spent calling in. Tilly’s scheduled its employees for three types of “on-call” shifts: (1) Employees had scheduled regular shifts and on-call shifts
Do your employees commute? Are you in a type of business where your employees are constantly changing their work-site? Does that leave you wondering whether you have to pay your employee’s travel time to and from work? You may also be wondering about your obligations regarding mileage reimbursements. A California court of appeal recently addressed this issue in Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., CO84350 (11/15/2018). Commuting Time to Office or Job Site At Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Pacific Bell initially required employees to report to a Pacific Bell garage each day. When they arrived at the garage they
LEGAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO PERSONALITY TESTING IN THE HIRING PROCESS Finding the perfect employee is not an easy task in today’s competitive market. Employers used to settle for standard job applications. These days employers are using various selection and auditioning methods during the interview process. One of these methods is requiring job candidates to undergo personality tests which provides certain benefits. However, you must carefully weigh the risks associated with such a recruitment practice. ADA, Title VII & ADEA Violations Personality testing has the potential of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights