To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Standing in line waiting to have your temperature taken – at some point over the last year, most of us have had this experience. At youth sports games, at the gym, at daycare, and of course, at your place of employment. A year ago, at the outset of the pandemic, we warned employers that measuring worker temperatures without paying for the time spent performing this task might lead to wage and hour claims. And it appears that our warning was prophetic. With the boom of COVID-19 workplace lawsuits upon us, some employers are now facing a “long line” of their own – a line of employees who want to sue for waiting time.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
We have long reported about that modern marvel of well-intentioned legislation gone awry known as the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) – and we also have noted that in practice, PAGA stands for Pretty-much All Goes to the Attorneys. A recently published report (the “Report”) from some of the former leaders of the California Department of Industrial Relations and Cal/OSHA suggests we were right.
Originally enacted in 2004 to remedy an ostensible “strain on government resources,” PAGA enables an “aggrieved employee” to file representative actions on behalf of fellow employees to recover civil penalties from an employer for alleged Labor Code violations. Three-quarters of the recovery is supposed to go to the State of California not the “aggrieved employees.” However, certain “bounty hunter” plaintiffs’ lawyers routinely use PAGA to obtain astronomical settlements for Labor Code violat
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Posted April 6th, 2021 for Hoge Fenton By
04.6.2021 When an employer receives a letter addressed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) alleging various violations of the Labor Code, the employer frequently ignores the letter. However, the letter is an indication that a lawsuit will be filed against the employer. An employer that ignores this letter misses an opportunity to potentially cure violations (or, at least, prospectively address violations), respond to the allegations, and/or prepare for an impending lawsuit. The letter is easy to overlook and ignore because:
the letter is often not addressed to the employer (the employer is just copied),
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The regulatory framework that applies to California is complex and ever-changing. Even the most diligent employers can find themselves unintentionally out of compliance in ways both big and small. And California provides many avenues for employees to bring claims challenging that noncompliance, including administrative complaints, private individual or class action lawsuits, and actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
The following summarizes the most frequently missed requirements when employees are situated in the Golden State. Consulting with experienced California employment counsel is worth the relatively small investment when compared to the potential headaches and costs associated with compliance mistakes.