On October 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Cadena v. Customer Connex LLC, concerning whether the time employees spend booting up and shutting down their computers is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Although the case arose out of a call center in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the employees’ principal duties included answering customer phone calls, this case may affect all employers whose employees spend time turning on their computers to work.
Tyler Johnson is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office.
In a recent opinion in Hill v. Walmart Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Walmart on Hill’s claim for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203, finding there was a good-faith dispute about whether Hill was properly classified as an independent contractor of Walmart. …
Continue Reading Good Faith Dispute Over Employment Relationship Allows Walmart to Escape Waiting Time Penalties
To close out the 2021 legislative season, Governor Gavin Newsom signed dozens of bills into law, many of which directly affect California employers. In addition to the coverage in prior blog posts, which are linked below, this article provides an overview of key new employment laws.
Continue Reading 2021 California Legislative Update: California’s New Employment Laws
On November 16, 2020, California implemented an accelerated application of its Blueprint for a Safer Economy metrics. Under the Blueprint Framework, every county in California is assigned to a tier based on its test positivity and adjusted case rate. Each tier has its own set of restrictions. Three days later, on November 19, 2020, the state issued a limited Stay at Home Order.
Continue Reading California Department of Public Health Issues New Statewide Stay At Home Order Linked to ICU Bed Capacity
On January 8, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. strengthening the enforceability of arbitration “delegation clauses.” These clauses have been previously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and allow parties to agree that an arbitrator, rather than a court, will decide the threshold issue of whether a dispute must be arbitrated, as well as the merits of the dispute. The Supreme Court in Henry Schein rejected a doctrine adopted by several federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal, which permitted courts to decline to enforce delegation clauses if the underlying assertion of arbitrability was “wholly groundless.” Under Henry Schein, courts must refer questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator when the parties have agreed to a clear and unmistakable delegation, even if the court believes the claim of arbitrability is frivolous.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Rejects ‘Wholly Groundless’ Exception to Delegation Clauses in Arbitration Agreements