• 08.16.18

    California Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Doctrine

    Answering a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court declared that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) de minimis doctrine does not apply to the state’s wage and hour rules and regulations.

  • 08.09.18

    Fifth Circuit Pins Down Insignia Ban

    The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) that a ban on pins violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and held that In-N-Out Burger failed to overcome the presumption that a blanket ban on insignia ...

  • 08.03.18

    New York AG Hits Employer With $120K Fine for Violations

    The New York attorney general settled with an international retailer for violations of both the state and city “ban the box” laws for $120,000 in penalties and costs.

  • 06.27.18

    Employers Score Insurance Coverage From California Supreme Court

    In a victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ordered an insurer to provide coverage to a policyholder facing a negligent hiring, retention and supervision lawsuit.

  • 06.18.18

    Court Rules: PAGA Claim Doesn’t Require Injury

    A Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim based on the failure to provide and maintain accurate wage statements as required by the California Labor Code does not require proof of injury, a California appellate panel has ruled.

  • 05.31.18

    NLRB: Rulemaking May Be Solution to Joint Employer Standard

    The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) announced that it is considering rulemaking to address the joint employer standard, launching the internal process necessary and adding the issue to its spring 2018 agenda.

  • 05.16.18

    Decision Provides Successor Liability Warning for Employers

    A federal court sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the question of successor liability with respect to an employer who may now be responsible for alleged actions by its predecessor in a Title VII action. 

  • 05.03.18

    California Makes Seismic Shift With New ‘ABC’ Independent Contractor Test

    In a landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Charles Lee), the California Supreme Court adopted a new legal standard for determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of California wage orders ...

  • 05.03.18

    ALJ Wants Lowe’s to Talk About Salary

    Workers are allowed to discuss their salaries, a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge (ALJ) told Lowe’s Home Centers in a decision, finding that multiple versions of the employer’s rule violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

  • 04.23.18

    Ninth Circuit: Prior Salary Can’t Justify Wage Differential

    Noting that “[s]alaries speak louder than words,” the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ruled that employers may not justify a wage differential between male and female employees by relying on prior salary, even in combination with other factors.



pursuant to New York DR 2-101(f)

© 2022 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

All rights reserved