Does a third party’s criminal conduct of throwing concrete down onto a freeway relieve truck manufacturer’s duty to design windshield to protect against such flying objects?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

In Collins v. Navistar, Inc. (filed March 29, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 4169, a juvenile was throwing chunks of concrete from a freeway overpass onto the freeway, hitting a number of vehicles. One such vehicle was that of plaintiff’s deceased spouse, William Collins; a two and a half pound chunk penetrated the windshield and hit William […]

Continue to Article »

Does California law require employers to compensate piece-rate employees a separate hourly minimum wage for non-piece-rate-producing required hours?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

The situation: wage and hour class action brought by automotive technicians against their employer who compensates repair work employees on a piece-rate basis; while total compensation would not drop below the “minimum wage floor” (total compensation for total number of hours), employees were not otherwise compensated anything for those specific hours they were required to […]

Continue to Article »

Time Clock Practices – Rounding Up or Down of Time Worked

Posted by Mark Kruthers on

“To round or not to round?” That is a question asked by many employers when trying to decide how best to structure their payroll policies and practices. In an attempt to simplify the way time worked is reported and paid, and in the hope of eliminating issues caused by employees who “clock in” a little […]

Continue to Article »

When is a rejected joint offer to settle enforceable to award expert witness fees (CCP sect. 998)?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

In McDaniel v. Asuncion (filed March 27, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 4038, the plaintiffs, wife and daughter of decedent who lost his life in an automobile accident, sued numerous defendants for wrongful death. Before trial, defendant Asuncion served a joint offer to the two plaintiffs to settle against this defendant alone in the amount of $100,000, […]

Continue to Article »

The U.S. Department of Labor Publishes New Regulations for FMLA Military Caregiver Leave and Qualifying Exigency Leave

Posted by Daniel Klingenberger on

On February 6, 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published final regulations related to the Military Family Leave components of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The FMLA applies to employers with 50 or more employees and is similar in many respects to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).  One area in which […]

Continue to Article »

Affordable Care Act Alert

Posted by Dowling Aaron on

With the election behind us, employers can now anticipate that many of the provisions of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, will need to be understood and followed. Beginning in 2014, large employers (employing 50 or more full-time employees), but not employers with less than 50 full-time employees, will be penalized […]

Continue to Article »

Can product-design-defect strict liability apply to implanted medical devices? When can expert declaration be excluded on MSJ?

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

The above two questions are presented in Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (filed 3/6/2013) B238304. Plaintiff Garrett was treated for cancer in his left femur by an orthopedic surgeon who implanted a prosthetic device, designed and manufactured by defendants, the surgeon had selected to replace the middle portion of the femur. When plaintiff complained about […]

Continue to Article »

New California Pregnancy Disability Regulations Take Effect December 30, 2012

Posted by Daniel Klingenberger on

After two years of revisions and public comment, changes to California’s pregnancy disability regulations are nearly final and will go into effect on December 30, 2012. The new regulations will apply to all California employers with five (5) or more employees. California is one of few states with its own pregnancy disability protections, including pregnancy […]

Continue to Article »

New California Requirements Regarding Requests to Inspect or Copy Personnel Records

Posted by Micah Nilsson on

On January 1, 2013, California Labor Code section 1198.5 was amended to clarify the obligations of employers to provide personnel records to employees, former employees, or their representatives (e.g., attorney or labor representative) upon request. If an employee makes a verbal request to inspect or copy his or her personnel file, the employer must provide the […]

Continue to Article »