Employment Law Blog

Starting in January 2021, there will be some new employment legislation going into effect. Here’s a little breakdown of some key things to know, as an employee.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT Our firm filed a representative action on behalf of Aggrieved Employees and the State of California against Instacart in Santa Clara County in 2018: Ornelas v. Maplebear, Inc. (d/b/a lnstacart), case no. 18CV323046. Based on our client’s experiences, we alleged that lnstacart’s timekeeping app deleted employees’ hours worked on cancelled jobs and failed […]

Under the “ABC Test” established by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a worker is an employee if any of the following conditions are met:

Section 226, subdivision (a) of the Labor Code requires an employer to provide employees with “an accurate itemized statement” that includes: (1) gross wages earned; (2) total hours worked; (3) certain information for employees paid on a piece-rate basis; (4) all deductions; (5) net wages earned; (6) the pay period; (7) the employee’s name and identifying information; (8) “the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer”; and (9) all applicable hourly rates. “An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($ 50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($ 100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($ 4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” (§ 226, subd. (e)(1).) Injunctive relief and civil penalties are also available. (§§ 226, subd. (h), 226.3).

Section 510 of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order require employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond eight in a day and forty in a week (and double-time as provided in the statute and Wage Order).

The well-recognized factors that a trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of the value of a class action settlement agreement include, but are not limited to:
[T]he strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.

Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders require employers to authorize and permit meal periods to their employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes.

In cases where an employer failed to maintain accurate records of employees’ hours worked, evidence of the extent of employees’ working hours must be established primarily by testimonial evidence.  This is the established method of proof:
“[W]here the employer’s records are inaccurate or inadequate and the employee cannot offer convincing substitutes a . . . difficult problem arises.  The solution, however, is not to penalize the employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work.  Such a result would place a premium on an employer’s failure to keep proper records in conformity with his statutory duty; it would allow the employer to keep the benefits of an employee’s labors without paying due compensation.  . . .  In such a situation we hold that an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.  The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence.”
Hernandez v. Mendoza (1988), 199 Cal.App.3d 721, 727 (quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680, 687–688).

Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders require Defendant to authorize and permit meal and rest periods to its employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes. “[A]n employer’s obligation is to provide an off duty […]