8,398 results found

Employers are increasingly resorting to arbitration agreements, waivers and releases and other strategies.

Companies who employ healthcare employees on shifts longer than 12 hours need to change their meal period rules immediately.

If an employee is required to be available by radio, pager, mobile phone, or the like on a rest break, does it count as a rest break?

Three Pryor Cashman partners have again been honored by Lawdragon, which included Colleen L. Caden, Ronald H. Shechtman, and Joshua Zuckerberg to its 2023 "Lawdragon 500 Leading Corporate Employment Lawyers" list.

Three Pryor Cashman partners have again been honored by Lawdragon, which included Colleen L. Caden, Ronald H. Shechtman, and Joshua Zuckerberg on its 2024 "Lawdragon 500 Corporate Employment Lawyers" list.

Late last month, the California Court of Appeal upheld a $180,000 award of sanctions against an employer for bringing a baseless trade secret misappropriation suit.

This week, the California Court of Appeals addressed a wage topic that arises in a wide variety of workplaces – payment for on-call time.

Is more of a good thing a better thing? In some contexts, not, as reflected by a recent case from the Northern District of California.

On May 5, 2015, in Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that an internal complaint of an alleged securities law violation is sufficient to invoke the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation protection.

In late August, the California Senate and Assembly passed AB 465, which, if signed by Governor Jerry Brown, will make pre-employment mandatory agreements to arbitrate Labor Code violations against California public policy starting January 1, 2016.

California, already known for its progressive and extensive anti-discrimination legislation, has once again raised the bar for workplace protections.

California wage and hour law provides an exemption for commissioned salespersons. As with the more common executive, administrative, and professional exemptions, employees don’t qualify for the exemption unless their earnings exceed one and a half times the minimum wage.

California's Supreme Court issued an opinion today that will likely further increase employers' risk of class action lawsuits arising out of meal periods.

On Monday, April 16, 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled that employees may recover for meal breaks missed as far back as three years before filing suit.

As we previously reported, the United States Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906, delivered a victory for California employers.

Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court, in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, clarified that the suitable seating requirement in several California wage orders may entitle employees to a seat when their tasks can be accomplished while seated.

Early last month, we told you that a critical trial ruling in a gig economy misclassification case could be put on hold because a separate court was mulling whether to loosen the test ...