Payment of final wages upon termination (or resignation) can be a big deal in California. Labor Code sections 201-203 set forth important rules that employers must follow, and can result in stiff penalties when they are violated: up to 30 days of pay at the employee’s regular daily wages. A recent California Court of Appeal decision explores the question of when temporary workers are owed their final wages. In Young v. REMX Specialty Staffing (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 427, the plaintiff was hired by a temporary staffing agency in July 2013. She was then assigned to a Bank of the West location and ..read more

Some businesses in California use other companies to provide their workers. The company that provides the workers is sometimes referred to as a “Labor Contractor.” Unfortunately, Labor Contractors may, for a number of reasons, stop paying their workers. The question then is whether the workers can sue the business that used the Labor Contractor for their unpaid wages. In 2014, California enacted a statute to address this situation: Labor Code section 2810.3.  Section 2810.3 provides a new form of liability for businesses that obtain workers from third-party contractors. It applies to busi ..read more

This post provides basic information about California’s Equal Pay Act, which is found in Labor Code sections 1197.5 and 432. The Equal Pay Act (or “EPA”) prohibits employers from paying employees less than employees of the opposite sex for equal work. As January 1, 2017, it also prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of another race, or of another ethnicity, for substantially similar work. Basic Provisions of California’s EPA In 2015, California’s Fair Pay Act amended and strengthened the Equal Pay Act and underscored California’s commitment to achieving gender pay ..read more

California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Healthy Workplaces Act), which is found at Labor Code § 245, requires certain employers to provide their employees with at least three paid sick days per year. Employers that violate this law may be subject to a host of damages, including liquidated damages and civil penalties. A recent case from the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that employees could bring a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for violations of the Healthy Workplaces Act. In Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (D079528, filed on Fe ..read more

In a hard-fought victory, Hunter Pyle Law recently prevailed on opposing an employer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Hunter Pyle Law filed a wage and hour class action and representative action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of our client. The complaint seeks relief for nurses who worked throughout the state of California and alleges that the employer committed various wage and hour violations dating back to 2017. The case was pending for over a year when the employer attempted to compel the case to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the employee’s ..read more

While California law protects employees who are disabled, it also protects workers whose employers perceive them to have a physical or mental impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926.1(b). In other words, California law protects workers from adverse employment actions because their employer “erroneously or mistakenly believed” them to have or have had a disability. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926.1(d). For example, in one case, Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal,. 248 Cal.App.4th 216 (2016), an empl ..read more

California law prohibits an employer from taking an adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s association with a disabled person. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926(o). This is referred to as an “associational disability” claim. To prove an associational disability claim, an employee must prove that: (1) the “disability” from which they suffer is their association with a disabled person; (2) they were otherwise qualified to do the job without reasonable accommodation; and (3) their association with a disabled person was a substantial motivating factor for the employer’s adverse emplo ..read more