Showing 9 posts from September 2013.

Employer’s Arbitration Agreement Passes Muster

In Peng v. First Republic Bank, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District rejected an employee’s contention that a company’s standard arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

Peng stands for the proposition that most boilerplate arbitration agreements contained in employment contracts will be upheld unless the employer enforces them in bad faith. For example, an employer may not unilaterally modify an agreement after an employee has filed a claim. More ›

Obamacare Small Business Exchange Delayed

Mounting technical delays are complicating the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

The website Politico is reporting that the Obama Administration intends to delay a portion of Obamacare aimed at small businesses.

The delay involves online enrollment for small business health exchanges run by the federal government known as “SHOP” exchanges, Politico reports.  Enrollment was scheduled to start on October 1, 2013.  Small businesses will now have to wait until November to enroll online, though paper enrollment is still an option. More ›

Are You Ready For Obamacare’s Employee Notice Requirements?

An important deadline for employers regarding the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is just around the corner.

By October 1, 2013, employers must notify employees of the coverage options available on health insurance marketplaces or exchanges. The requirement applies to companies with one or more employees and not less than $500,000 in annual business — in other words most employers. More ›

No Anti-SLAPP Protection for Statements to Coworkers

In Cho v. Chang, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an employee’s statements to coworkers about alleged discrimination were not protected activities triggering special protection under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

The court further held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be granted as to protected activities and denied as to unprotected activities combined within the same cause of action. More ›

October 1 Deadline Approaching for Employers to Issue “Notice of Coverage Options” to Employees

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes on employers various new obligations that are to take effect over the next several years. Employers received some measure of relief with the surprise announcement of a one-year delay in the enforcement of the employer mandate until January 1, 2015. Other requirements under the ACA, however, continue to move forward. More ›

Class Certification Rules Clarified: Harder for Plaintiffs to Certify Classes

On September 3, 2013, in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., the Ninth Circuit clarified the restrictions on class certification imposed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The net effect of this ruling is to make it harder for plaintiffs to certify classes.

In Wang, named plaintiffs were employees of Chinese Daily News (“CDN”) who alleged that they had been made to work more than eight hours per day and more than forty hours per week. They also alleged that they were wrongfully denied overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, and accurate and itemized wage statements. More ›

Proposed Employer tax Rules Available for Obamacare

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have published proposed rules establishing reporting requirements for employers and insurers under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), or Obamacare.

Under the ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer health insurance or pay a penalty. The new proposed rules flesh out how employers must report information to the IRS with respect to their employees’ enrollment in qualified health plans. More ›

It just got Easier to Remove Class Actions

In Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC the Ninth Circuit cited recent United States Supreme Court precedent to make it more difficult for class action plaintiffs to pursue their claims in state court. More ›

Strippers’ Suit Alleges they are Employees, not Independent Contractors

In a purported class action, Jessica Mason et al. v. Fantasy LLC et al., five adult dancers have sued the Fantasy Gentlemen’s Club in Colorado federal court for misclassifying them as independent contractors, alleging they were in fact employees. The dancers claim that, as employees, they were entitled to back wages, overtime, and other benefits.

Plaintiffs allege that they were paid no wages, but were in fact required to pay for the right to dance at the club. As employees, they allege, they were entitled to wages, overtime, and to retain the totality of their tips, among other things.

The Complaint states that dancers were forced to comply with various rules of the establishment, or else pay fines. More ›