…little attention so far has been given what is perhaps the most important question for California employers: What is required, practically, to comply with the mandate that an employer “… relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so.”
A California Court of Appeal has written another chapter in the unfinished epic struggle between the federal and California courts over the enforceability of employment arbitration agreements. And it reads against enforceability. The decision, Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., is of practical value, and provides guidance on drafting and implementing an employment arbitration agreement…
California law prohibits anyone driving on public roadways from using a wireless telephone unless the phone is configured for hands-free listening and talking and used in that manner while driving. Carl Nelson is one person who would not willingly accept the ticket he received for his phone while stopped at a stop-light.
A new California law (AB 1396) requires that all employment relationships that involve payment of commissions “shall be in writing and shall set forth the method by which the commissions shall be computed and paid.”
On July 15, 2011, minor amendments to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (“RRP”) rule became final, making this a good time to revisit that rule, which became effective last year.
Another California Court of Appeal has concluded that while employers must provide employees with meal and rest breaks, they do not need to ensure that employees actually take them. In the Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, the court denied class certification and, more importantly for this discussion, ruled against the plaintiffs’ on the merits of their claims.
In 2001, in the wake of increased concerns over deleterious health impacts of multicellular fungi, or mold, found in indoor environments, the California Legislature enacted a comprehensive protection scheme called the Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001 (“the Act”)…Looking back now, 10 years later, the Act looks like much ado about nothing. Though the most recent update found on the DPH website is dated July 2008…
Under newly-enacted sections 17926, 17926.1, and 17926.2 of the Health & Safety Code (part of Senate Bill No. 183), owners of all such properties (excepting properties that are, generally-speaking, owned by or leased to the government) must install carbon monoxide alarms by the following deadlines: (1) July 1, 2011, as to single-family dwellings, or (2) January 1, 2013, as to all other dwellings.