• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

Wages & Hours

Must we pay for pre-shift talk?

07/26/2011
Q. Last week, we asked a nonexempt employee to come in 30 minutes before her regular start time to talk to her about a complaint that had come to our attention. Do we have to pay her for the time spent in discussions with management?

Supreme Court sides with Walmart in massive class-action case

07/26/2011
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in June rejected class-action status for an estimated 1.5 million female employees who brought gender-discrimination claims against Walmart, the country’s largest private employer. The issue before the High Court wasn’t whether Walmart discriminates against women, but whether the 1.5 million-member class was legitimate.

FLSA beef stirs up lawsuit against Panda Express

07/26/2011
The Chinese fast-food chain Panda Express faces a national overtime lawsuit after a federal district court judge in New York ruled the case could move forward as a class action.

Blame the bad economy: Telework on the decline

07/25/2011
The total number of people who worked from home or another remote location for an entire day at least once a month has declined for the first time since 2003. The pull-back from telework reflects a psychology driven by the anemic economy, according to an expert.

Altering employee’s schedule? Be sure to document your reasons for making the change

07/25/2011
There are plenty of good reasons why you might have to change an employee’s schedule. Don’t get sloppy about how you implement the change. Make sure you document exactly why you are rejiggering the usual schedule.

Can we offer pizza instead of pay when employees must work through lunch?

07/19/2011
Q. Occasionally, when we receive a big order, our nonexempt employees are required to work through their lunch break. Although we do not pay them overtime for this work, we buy pizzas and sodas for all the affected workers. Is this lawful?

State pay law now covers out-of-state employees working in California

07/19/2011

A unanimous California Supreme Court has ruled that California-based employers must pay out-of-state resident employees based on the provisions of the California Labor Code, even if those employees only visit the state on a limited, temporary basis. The decision is worrisome for multi­state employers because it may open the door for more employee lawsuits seeking the generous protections offered by California law.

Are those employees similarly situated? Not if they’re acting like free agents

07/19/2011
A federal court has rejected a bid by two former employees to represent other similarly situated employees, based on the employer’s claim of conflict of interest. The court agreed that these particular employees weren’t the best choice to represent other workers.

No lunch, no break? You owe for 2 more hours

07/19/2011
The Court of Appeal of California has finally clarified how much em­­ployers owe employees who don’t get their required meal and other breaks. The penalty is two hours of pay per day if workers missed both types of breaks.

Classifying employees? Examine specific tasks

07/19/2011

Courts are becoming more reluctant to authorize massive class-action lawsuits. Example: A federal court has ruled that assistant restaurant managers who believe they were misclassified must bring individual lawsuits. They can’t proceed as a class. The practical impact: Most likely, lower damages.