Tag: California Employers

Top 5 Wage and Hour Risks for California Employers

The new federal overtime rules, the misclassification of employees, and recordkeeping are among the top five wage and hour risks employers in California face, according to California attorney Marc Jacuzzi of the law firm Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi, PC.

Print

California Employers, Follow Your Own Policies!

By Beth Kahn and Sigalit Shoghi, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP The California Court of Appeal has sent employers a message to be vigilant in following their policies and attentive to employees who request time off for medical conditions. See how the court’s ruling against a California university is a good reminder for other employers […]

Print

An Arbitration Agreement Win for California Employers

By Emily Mertes, Sedgwick LLP In a recent California Appellate Court decision, what began as an otherwise uncomplicated employment case resulted in an arbitration agreement win for employers. Read on to see how the court determined that employee acknowledgment was sufficient to enforce an arbitration agreement.

Print

New Overtime Regs: Alert to California Employers

In its new overtime regulations, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has more than doubled its salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA’s) white-collar overtime exemptions. This causes a rare circumstance in which federal law provides employees with more protections than California law.

Print

Why Documentation is Crucial When Discipline Is Involved

Yesterday, we looked at attorney David Schmit’s “Workers’ Comp 101” tips for staying in legal compliance when discipline is necessary—including the importance of good cause and consistent treatment. Today, his thoughts on the key role of documentation.

Print

New Workers’ Comp Case Is Good News for Employers

Yesterday, we looked at a case in which a brand-new agricultural worker fell off a high ladder, sustaining both physical and psychiatric injuries. Normally a worker has to be with an employer for at least six months to recover for psychiatric injuries—what did the court conclude in this case?

Print