Yesterday, a California Court of Appeal in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (Ashley Furniture) found that commission pay plans providing base pay for rest breaks that could be “clawed-back” against future earnings was invalid under California law. Ashley Furniture was sued in a class action by employees claiming that its commission pay plan was noncompliant with California law because it did not properly pay sales employees for rest breaks. The Court of Appeal had two important rulings...

Under the Trump Administration, change is likely to come to the CFPB and FTC, but its extent and how it impacts auto dealers is unknown. Trump has started shaking things up with controversial Executive Orders and the backlash is already mounting. In more liberal states, like California, Governors and Attorneys General have already vowed to push back and may very well step up their own enforcement where the federal government falls short. This makes for an uncertain future for regulatory enforcement that cannot be easily predicted.

“Whether he’s handling a mediation or a substantive court appearance involving a class action, Jurdi has shown he can go in alone and walk out victorious,” said Christian Scali. “He’s going to add substantial firepower to our consumer protection cases.”

As tempting as it may be for an employer to just throw all documentation pertaining to an employee into one personnel file, numerous legal reasons exist why certain records need to be separated from others, such as privacy, discrimination, and HIPPAA obligations.

Although employers are generally aware that they must provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees, which could include modified work duties, leaves of absence, or reduced schedules, there is an additional obligation that is often overlooked: the obligation to engage in the interactive process. In fact, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the failure to engage in the interactive process creates an entirely separate legal claim.