Employers have long struggled to make sense of the changing laws regarding when to pay employees whom they don’t perceive as actually working but who aren’t entirely free. In May, we reported that in Ward v. Tilly’s, a California appellate court ruled that employees can be deemed to be “reporting to work” and entitled to reporting time pay for merely calling in to determine whether they must come to work.
Join us at Topgolf on Friday, September 20 for a golf tournament everyone can enjoy! The event runs from 4 to 8 pm and includes happy hour, dinner, play, games, awards and more. Attendees must be 21 years or older.
The Los Angeles Business Journal today published its list of the “Top Litigators in Los Angeles,” naming Scali Rasmussen Managing Partner, Christian Scali. Of the more than 350 nominations, only 50 professionals were selected. The list, according to the publication, includes those lawyers who “go to the proverbial mat to fight for their clients.” This is the second consecutive year that Scali has made the list.
In a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, the Court confirmed that auto dealers cannot withhold a customer’s down payment after a sale is unwound as a result of the inability to secure financing, and that the DMV has authority to discipline a dealer for doing so, including suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license.
This article is a follow-up to an article discussing the future enactment of warning regulations for rental vehicles pursuant to California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Proposition 65.” Since that article, the proposed regulations for rental vehicles have gone into effect and regulators have issued their “Final Statement of Reasons” explaining the purpose and intent of the regulations.
Last year, we discussed the significance of the case Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, in which the California Supreme Court found that the federal de minimis doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff’s class action claims brought under California law. The federal de minimis doctrine provides that “insubstantial or insignificant periods of time…which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded.” In cases applying federal law, courts have regularly held that daily periods of up to 10 minutes of work are de minimis.
In recent weeks two data breaches have made headlines across the country, once again drawing attention to the need for businesses to take steps to safeguard customer data. Dealers have a legal obligation to safeguard their customer’s information under both federal and state law, in most jurisdictions. These breaches may also increase the salience of data security issues for customers, meaning that your customers may start to ask questions about how you will protect their data and demand good answers. With the legal obligations aligning with customer expectations, now is the time more than ever to act.
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was enacted in June of 2018 and will go into effect on January 1, 2020, is likely to undergo additional changes as the California Legislature enters the final stretch of the legislative year. We have previously updated you on legislation supported by the California Attorney General that would expand the scope of the law and increase consumer’s opportunities for consumers to bring lawsuits for alleged violations of the law. The good news is that the worst aspects of these proposed changes were defeated in committee and will not be enacted this year. The bad news is that some of the more important proposed business-friendly protections have been narrowed.
In a case demonstrating that independent franchised dealers are advocates for the rights and safety of their customers in the face of factory complacency and even opposition, a jury ordered Toyota to pay Southern California Toyota dealer Roger Hogan $15.8 million.