Plaintiffs’ attorneys in California have long been scrutinizing their clients’ paystubs, looking for any excuse to file a claim against defendant employers for wage statement violations. Considering the Labor Code’s requirement that wage statements contain the “name and address of the legal entity that is the employer,” (Lab. Code § 226(a)) some plaintiffs have argued that paystubs reflecting only a company’s fictitious business name (“FBN”) violate the Labor Code. In one recent case, the plaintiff argued that the employer, YRC, Inc., erred in listing its fictitious business name, YRC Freight, on plaintiff’s paystubs. Under an additional theory of liability, the plaintiff alleged that the employer violated the Labor Code by failing to include the employer’s Zip+4 Code (the unnecessary last four numbers sometimes added to zip codes).

California employers and dealerships are regularly getting hit with class action wage and hour claims, or lawsuits under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which presently allows a single employee to bring claims for all others who suffered any violation of numerous labor statutes. One common issue in these cases is meal breaks. Employers should be aware of potential meal break pitfalls. This article will help you avoid them.

We explore some of the legal and deal considerations that buyers and sellers face in dealing with various types of acquisition financing in this article, originally published in Automotive Buy Sell Report.

In 2015, California automobile dealers applauded the holding of the Court of Appeal in Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1198, concluding attorneys fees and costs are not available to a plaintiff when a dealer made an appropriate and timely correction offer in response to a Consumer Legal Remedies Act demand. Since then, the Courts have been distinguishing the facts of Benson to chip away at its dealer-friendly applications.

Employers are required to provide sexual harassment training under the FEHA as part of their obligation to ensure a workplace free of sexual harassment.

In this December 12, 2018, ruling the Court of Appeal again reminded those involved in the sale of automobiles to consumers of the expense of litigation.

This is a case to watch because a decision in favor of the out-of-state retailers could embolden others who might seek to challenge other state law based occupational licensing requirements.

Touted as strengthening the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is backing two new bills that would impose additional requirements on California businesses while also eliminating their right to cure problems or seek guidance from the Attorney General’s office regarding compliance with the CCPA.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) has requested public comment on two petitions to exempt driverless vehicles from certain safety standards, one from General Motors, and another from lesser known Nuro, Inc. Petitions to the Department of Transportation are requests by the public to have Federal Regulations changed or exemptions from them granted. These petitions seek temporary exemptions. What is notable about these petitions is that both are requesting exemptions to be able to move farther away from the traditional notion of a motor vehicle, and closer to the futuristic notion of “mobility pods” with no driver controls.

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for a business with ten or more employees to expose a person in California to a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” or “reproductive harm” without providing a clear and reasonable warning.