The California Court of Appeal - Fourth District - has ruled that an employer may not recover attorney fees incurred in successfully defending a wage claim, found not to have been brought in bad faith, when the wage claim was inextricably intertwined with a contract claim (e.g. for breach of a promissory not) for which the employer would otherwise be contractually entitled to recover attorney fees. (Dane-Elec v. Bodokh - filed May 24, 2019, Fourth District, Div. Three, 2019 S

According to data released by the Department of Labor, in the week ending May 18, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 211,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 212,000. The 4-week moving average was 220,250, a decrease of 4,750 from the previous week's unrevised average of 225,000. The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.2 percent for the week ending May 11, unchanged from the previous week's unr

The California Court of Appeal - Fourth District - has ruled that Government Code Section 19584 does not allow an employee to recover damages for his increased tax liability for having received a lump sum back pay award. (See, Barber v, State Personnel Board (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) - May 17, 2019, Fourth District, 2019 S.O.S. 2393.) In Barber, the plaintiff/appellant employee was awarded a lump sum back pay award from the California State Personnel Boar

The Ninth Circuit court of appeals held last week that the trial court impermissibly abdicated its gatekeeping function in admitting expert testimony without first finding it to be reliable. (See, United States v. Ruvalcaba-Garcia (9th Cir.) May 10, 2019, 17-50288.) The court of appeals ruled that before admitting expert testimony into evidence, a district court must first ensure that the testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable” under Rule 702.

California SB 188, which aims to protect traits such as hairstyle and texture from discrimination in the workplace and schools, passed the Senate floor April 22 in a 37-0 bipartisan vote. SB 188 specifically amends the definition of “race” under FEHA to include “traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles,” including “braids, locks, and twists.” The legislative process is still in its early stages, so SB 188 could still be amended

The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District ruled this week that a worker qualified as a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce under 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 even though he did not physically transport goods across state lines, since his employer is in the transportation industry, and the vast majority of the goods he transported originated outside California. (See, Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines, LLC - May 1, 2019, Fourth District, Div. Three - 2019 S.O.S. 2117.)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the "ABC test" used for determining whether workers are employees adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court applies retroactively. (See, Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. - filed May 2, 2019 - 2019 S.O.S. 17-16096.) In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal on summary judgment of a complaint brought by a putative class again

If enacted, AB 372 would -- from January 1, 2020 until January, 1, 2022 -- establish the Infant at Work Pilot Program. The bill would authorize a state agency to participate in the pilot program to allow an employee of the agency who is a new parent or caregiver to an infant to bring the infant to the workplace. AB 372 was first introduced in February, and an amended version was passed from committee on last Thursday.