Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Supreme Court to Review Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Tip Decision
The California Supreme Court today granted the plaintiff's petition for review in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2009) 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 345. The Court limited its review to the following issue:
Labels:
Business and Professions Code section 17200,
California Supreme Court,
class action,
tips,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Alltop.com Calls Our Blog a "Gold Nugget"
Alltop.com is a web site that aggregates the world's best news sources and blogs. Here's how they describe what they do:
We do this by collecting the headlines of the latest stories from the best sites and blogs that cover a topic. We group these collections — “aggregations” — into individual web pages. Then we display the five most recent headlines of the information sources as well as their first paragraph.
Put differently, they give you the "gold nuggets" on any given topic. Alltop now lists The California Wage and Hour Blog for Employees on its "California" and "Law" web pages.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Ninth Circuit Asks Cal. Supreme Court to Rule on Wage and Hour and Unfair Competition Law Issues
A very interesting development involving both the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court. On February 17, 2009, in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the Ninth Circuit asked the Supremes to decide the following issues:
This is a fascinating case. Questions one and two seem to be gimme's for the employees. California has an overwhelming interest in applying California law to work done in California, whether the emploee typically resides within or outside California.
Question three is more complicated. Does 17200 apply to extra-territorial acts? I have not researched the issue and don't know the answer, but I'm eager to see what the Court has to say.
Stay tuned. The Court's docket sheet is here.
First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?On April 22, the Supremes agreed to review the case.
Second, does § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?
Third, does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?
This is a fascinating case. Questions one and two seem to be gimme's for the employees. California has an overwhelming interest in applying California law to work done in California, whether the emploee typically resides within or outside California.
Question three is more complicated. Does 17200 apply to extra-territorial acts? I have not researched the issue and don't know the answer, but I'm eager to see what the Court has to say.
Stay tuned. The Court's docket sheet is here.
Labels:
Business and Professions Code section 17200,
California Supreme Court,
class action,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
overtime,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Postal Inspectors Get OT
Good news for all the potal inspectors out there. In Nigg v. USPS, the Ninth Circuit held that postal inspectors are entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). I won't go into all the details, but anyone who's interested can read the opinion here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)