• Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Disclaimer
  • Contact Us
AshiLegal

(213) 260-3856

info@ashilegal.com

  • About Us
  • Services
  • How We Work
  • Fees
  • California Employment Law Updates

Category: Class Action

Supreme Court says “no” to on-call rest periods.

Posted on January 17, 2017November 23, 2017 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Class Action, Rest Periods

Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc. (2016) 2 Cal. 5th 257, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 634. ABM employs thousands of security guards at residential, retail, office, and industrial sites throughout California. Plaintiff Jennifer Augustus filed a putative class action on behalf of […]

Read More

Class Action by Card Dealers against Casino Employer for Tip Pooling Rejected

Posted on February 24, 2014February 25, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Class Action, Gratuity, Tip Pooling Tagged Avidor, Class Action, Gratuity, Tips

Avidor v. Sutter’s Place, Inc. (App. 6 Dist. 2013) 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 212 Cal.App.4th 1439 Under Casino employer’s tip-pooling arrangement, card dealers were required to contribute a set amount per hour into a tip pool which was distributed to nondealer […]

Read More

Court of Appeal decides on grant and hold cases post Brinker

Posted on September 29, 2012February 24, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Brinker Decision, Class Action, Meal Periods, Overtime, Rest Periods, Unpaid Wages Tagged Brinker, Impact of Brinker

An overview of Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp. (2012) 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 447, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 998; Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (2012) 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 424, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10 (as modified Sept. 25, 2012) and In […]

Read More

Court of Appeal clarifies on Split Shift and Reporting Time Pay Issues

Posted on September 24, 2012February 12, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Attorney fees, Class Action, Minimum Wages, Split Shifts, Unpaid Wages Tagged Attorney fees, Kirby, Reporting Time Pay, section 1194, section 218.5, Split Shift

Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 2012 WL 4130520 Background: Plaintiffs Daniel Krofta (Krofta) and Mary Katz (Katz) brought putative class action AirTouch Cellular (doing business as Verizon Wireless) (AirTouch) alleging violation of two separate provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission’s (IWC) […]

Read More

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Iskanian

Posted on September 24, 2012 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, Preemption

On September 19, 2012 the California Supreme Court granted review of Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (discussed here). Briefly, Iskanian found that a) The US Supreme Court decision in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131 […]

Read More

Court of Appeal holds a) Vacation benefits may be paid at a rate lower than the employee regular rate of pay during employment; b) Truck drivers are exempt from overtime under the federal motor carrier exemption, even if they mostly drive intrastate

Posted on September 12, 2012February 12, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Class Action, Minimum Wages, Overtime, Unpaid Wages, Vacation Pay Tagged minimum wages, overtime, truck drivers, vacation pay

Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (2012) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2012 WL 3846827 Background: Plaintiff, Oscar Bell and other truck drivers filed a class action complaint against H.F. Cox, Inc. (Cox) alleging Cox’ failure to pay overtime and failure to pay […]

Read More

Employer moves to compel arbitration after 13 months. Court of Appeal finds “no waiver”, enforces arbitration agreement

Posted on September 10, 2012February 12, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Arbitration, Class Action Tagged arbitration agreements, Concepcion decision

Reyes v. Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. (2012) 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 Background: Plaintiff Jesus Reyes (Reyes) worked as a security officer for Defendant Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. (LBI). Reyes signed an arbitration agreement through which he had agreed to submit to final and […]

Read More

Gentry still binding until the California Supreme Court rules on the issue of preemption by Concepcion

Posted on August 22, 2012February 12, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, Preemption Tagged arbitration agreements, Concepcion decision, Gentry decision, preemption, waiver

Truly Nolen of America v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 487, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 432 Background: Plaintiff Alvaro Miranda and Danny Luna filed a class action complaint against Defendant employer Truly Nolen of America (Truly Nolen), a nationwide provider of pest […]

Read More

Court of Appeal Upholds Arbitration Agreement. Rejects D.R. Horton

Posted on July 28, 2012February 12, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, Preemption Tagged arbitration agreements, Concepcion decision, D.R. Horton decision, Gentry decision, preemption, waiver

Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1115, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 Background: Plaintiff, Lorena Nelsen (Nelsen) worked a property manager in California for Defendant, Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. (LPI). At the inception of her employment, Plaintiff received an […]

Read More

Court of Appeal upholds class action and PAGA waiver in Employment Arbitration Agreements. Holds Concepcion invalidates Gentry

Posted on June 26, 2012February 12, 2014 by Ashish Gautam Posted in Attorney fees, Business and Professions Code section 17200, Class Action, Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Preemption Tagged arbitration agreements, Concepcion decision, Gentry decision, Iskanian decision, PAGA, waiver

Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 949, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 372 Background: Plaintiff, Arshavir Iskanian, worked as a driver for defendant CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (CLS). During his employment, Plaintiff signed a Proprietary Information and Arbitration […]

Read More

Posts navigation

Older posts

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court permits state wide discovery of employee’s contact information in PAGA Representative Actions
  • Supreme Court says “no” to on-call rest periods.
  • $15 Million settlement in only PAGA action for suitable seating.
  • An employer is only liable to pay a premium for “overtime work” as defined in CBA and not Section 510
  • New Amended Section 218.5 restricts recovery for attorney fees by prevailing employer only to claims brought in bad faith

Editor

Ashi The blog maintained by AshiLegal has been provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney to rely on or refrain from relying on any information provided on this website.

Tags

Anti-Wage-Theft arbitration agreements Attorney's fees Attorney fees Autozone Brinker decision California New Employment Laws 2012 church class certification Commission Agreements Concepcion decision Credit Check Credit Report Damages FEHA Gender Expression Gender Identity Genetic Discrimination Gentry decision Independent Contractor Insurance Agents Meal Periods Michelle Maykin Memorial Donation Protection Act minimum wages Misclassification non-profit non-resident employees in california Oracle Organ and Bone Marrow Donor Leave overtime PAGA preemption Pregnancy Leave religious associations religious exemption Rest Periods Section 558 section 1194 Sexual Harassment sick leave Thurman truck drivers Unpaid Wages waiver wrongful termination

Categories

Copyright 2017 AshiLegal. All rights reserved. Theme: Business Hub by Rigorous Themes.


Back To Top