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. 

In 2007, in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, the California Court of Appeals held  that a class waiver provision in an arbitration agreement should not be enforced if “class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of affected employees than individual arbitration.”

Last week, in Salome Samaniego, et. al. v. Empire Today, LLC (May 2012), the California Court of Appeals refused to enforce an arbitration clause in the context of wage and hour litigation on the grounds that the  arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.