Search

Search form

James P. CarterBlog Posts

See all

California’s Supreme Court Sets Meal and Rest Period Premium Pay At An Employee’s Regular Rate Of Pay, Not The Base Hourly Rate Alone

In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court has concluded that an employee’s “regular rate of compensation” for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s “regular rate of pay” for overtime.  Accordingly, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must pay those,  not at an employee’s base hourly... Continue Reading
July 15, 2021

California Supreme Court Answers the Ninth Circuit: Dynamex Applies Retroactively

In Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International (Vazquez), the California Supreme Court answered “Yes” to the Ninth Circuit’s question, “Does your independent contractor ABC test in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Dynamex) apply retroactively?” In 2018, the Dynamex Court concluded that under California wage orders, anyone who performs work for a business is presumed... Continue Reading
January 14, 2021

Trial Court Properly Denied Attorneys’ Fees To Plaintiff Who Proved His Termination Was Substantially Motivated By His Disabilities, But Was Not The Prevailing Party At Trial

In Bustos v. Global P.E.T., Inc., (E065869, Cal. Ct. App. January 16, 2018), Plaintiff William Bustos and a number of his co-workers were terminated by Global in an economic layoff.  Bustos sued Global alleging his disabilities were a substantial motivating reason for his termination. At trial, the jury awarded Bustos nothing, although the jury answered...… Continue Reading The post Trial Court Properly Denied Attorneys’ Fees To Plaintiff Who Proved His Termination Was Substantially Motivated By His Disabilities, But Was Not The Prevailing Party At Trial appeared first on California Workplace Law Blog.
January 19, 2018