In one of the previous posts, we discussed how some commercial bus drivers may be exempt from California overtime laws under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9 section 3(L). It is crucial to keep in mind that in addition to state law, hours and days of work of commercial bus drivers are also regulated by federal law, namely, the Federal Standard Labor Act of 1938 (“FLSA”.)

On September 30, 2012, the California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that amended Section 515 of the Labor Code. The bill did two things: first, it outlawed any agreement under which the employer sets a fix salary for non-exempt employees to compensate for both regular and overtime hours, and, second, it overruled a controversial decision Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 567 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011).

In its recent opinion Aleman (Michael) v. Airtouch Cellular, (Cal. 2012), (Cal. 2012), the California Court of Appeals examined the application of two important provisions from the Industrial Welfare Commission‘s Wage Order No. 4-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040): (1) reporting time compensation and (2) split shift premiums.

After the California Supreme Court held in Brinker that the employers are “not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure that no work is performed”  during  breaks, many California employers felt relieved, anticipating meal and rest break litigation to slow down. 

Classifying computer professionals for purposes of overtime exemption can be a daunting task even for the most experience employment law attorneys. This task requires a thorough understanding of a complex interplay of Federal and California law, comprehensive knowledge

Last week, we discussed how in Iskanian, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two)  held that the arbitration agreement could not be found unconscionable under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281, based on interference with the ability to vindicate statutory rights.