Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law on June 25, 2019 “An Act Concerning Paid Family and Medical Leave” (Act), that provides paid time off to new parents and caregivers, positioning Connecticut as the seventh state in the U.S. to provide paid family leave. Neighboring states, New York and New Jersey, already offer similar benefits.
FLSA ‘Regular Rate’ – DOL Provides Retailers with First Proposed Rules in Over 50 Years
On March 28, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) offered hope to retailers and others in the employer community seeking clarity regarding compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime calculation rules, by issuing a notice of a final rule to update the principles applicable for calculating the “regular rate.” It has been more than
DOL’s Proposed Overtime Rule to Increase Minimum Salary for Store Managers to Remain Exempt
The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued a proposed final rule that would increase the minimum salary required for most ‘white collar’ employees to remain exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. DOL anticipates that the new rule will make one million more U.S. workers eligible for overtime, many of whom work in the retail sector.
New Reporting Pay Obligations for California Retailers – Blame the Cell Phone?
A recent decision by a California appellate court may increase the frustration level for retailers trying to implement effective flexible work scheduling plans. In Ward v. Tilly’s Inc., No. B280151, 2019 WL 421743 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019 ), a majority of the court reversed a trial court’s decision and reinstated a
The Naked CEO – Personal Liability For Board Members And C-Suite Under ERISA
It’s 1974 and bell-bottom pants and platform shoes were in fashion…unfortunately. It was also the year that an odd federal law was passed that now governs $29 trillion in U.S. retirement plan assets. The law was ERISA or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. And notwithstanding the
California Lawsuits Over Seating for Employees Not Limited to Cashiers
Recent months have shown a dramatic increase in suits against retailers by cashiers seeking seats at work. The influx results from two California Court of Appeal decisions in late 2010 that permitted the plaintiff cashiers to pursue suits against their employers for not providing seating. Several suits filed since then come from cashiers seeking to
Ninth Circuit Holds that Under the ADA, Chipotle Mexican Grill Must Offer Patrons Equivalent Customer Experiences
Chipotle Mexican Grill coined the phrase the “Chipotle Experience” to describe customers’ participation in the preparation of their meal. In July 2010, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., that the Chipotle Experience violated the ADA because there was no “equivalent facilitation” for customers in wheelchairs, who could not see over a wall separating the food from the customers. The court awarded injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees. Like Chipotle, other restaurants and retailers are at risk for failing to offer the same customer experience to all their patrons, particularly if they advertise the experience to the public.
Pro-Union Presidential Appointees Likely to Change the Labor Law Landscape
labor employment appointments Obama NLRB “National Labor Relations Board” Becker
Continue Reading Pro-Union Presidential Appointees Likely to Change the Labor Law Landscape
State Appellate Court Vacates Class Action Settlement Due to Court’s Failure to Independently Analyze Fairness of Settlement.
Case: Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail Inc., Case No. A119697 (Cal. Ct. App. 11/7/08)
The One Sentence Summary: Approval of a $2 million settlement in a wage-and-hour class action against a retailer was vacated because the trial court failed to independently analyze the evidence and circumstances surrounding the settlement.
What They Were Fighting About: Defendant
Even Reasonable and Narrow Non-Compete Agreements Are Barred by California Statute
Employment contracts with non-competition clauses are common outside of California, but a California statute, section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code, prohibits non-compete contracts outside of a few statutory exceptions. In a decision issued on August 7, 2008, Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, No. S147190, the California Supreme Court held that section