We here at Who’s The Boss? just looove being right.

However, in this case, being right may not be good news for those California businesses who provide their employees with vehicles.  Being right may instead prove to be very costly to these otherwise generous employers.  (Sorry, we don't make the law, we just try to understand it.)

For those of you following the Commute Wars, you will remember last October's opinion by the 9th Circuit in Rutti v. Lojack, holding that commute time in a company vehicle was not a compensable event, even though the employer imposed certain restrictions on the employee’s use of the vehicle (such as no passengers, no personal errands, no use of cell phones other than calls from the office, must travel directly from home to first job and from last job to home without detours).  (I'm sure "no pizza" was in there too.)

This was good news to employers.  Who wants to pay their employees to sit in traffic for hours a day going to or from work?  Indeed, it could lead to Geographic Discrimination (don’t hire anyone from the ‘burbs who have longer commutes).  (Suburbanites, the new protected class?) 

Read More

Pausing on our trip down memory lane, we take a quick peek around the corner at what the California Supreme Court will be soon be waxing so eloquently about.  Here are this reporter’s favorites:

Shorten Those Pesky Statutes Of Limitations?:  Why can’t employers simply impose an Armendariz-compliant arbitration requirement on their employees as a condition of employment, and (while they are at it) include a provision whereby the parties “agree” that the statute of limitations will be shortened to something less than that permitted by FEHA?  Seems reasonable (if you are an employer), doesn’t it?  The Supreme Court will help us with this when it rules in Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court (No. S167169.)  The matter is fully briefed.  (Check here for latest court update or to request automatic email notifications about the case.)

Read More

If only I could be paid for my commute.  See, I live in the South Bay (the Southern California version) and commute to downtown Los Angeles along the 405, 105 and 110 freeways.  It's neither quick, nor particularly attractive.  (I save a little time in my Natural Gas Honda Civic, which gets me in the carpool lane, but not nearly as much as I did P.H. (pre-hybrid).  Now that those pesky Prius’ are allowed in the carpool lanes, I often go no faster than the carbon monoxide spewing Hummers two lanes over.)

So imagine if I could get paid for commuting.  I’d be rich!... and wouldn’t need to commute to work anymore.  Think of the incentives in car-happy California?  I might even want to drive in the slow lanes (which is redundant, especially during “rush hour,” which isn’t an hour and no one rushes.)

But getting paid to sit in morning gridlock listening to NPR (fine, Mark & Brian) would be wrong, wouldn’t it?

Mike Rutti decided to find out (or perhaps his attorney did).  Rutti v. Lojack Corp. is the result.

Read More

Remember way back when, when we reported on the reversal of the $86 million Starbucks tip pool verdict?  You can read about it here.  At the time, we agreed with the court's decision, opining that:

It made no sense to deprive hard working baristas, who happen to also be shift supervisors, of tips they helped generate.  These folks steam the soy and press the espresso, standing shoulder to shoulder with their barista brethren, doling out caffeinated charm to an often charmless public, and deserve the tips just as much as those they supervise.

Not surprisingly, the winners of that $86 million windfall were not pleased to see their tip money evaporate like the steam off a freshly foamed decaf cappuccino, dusted with cinnamon (I'm telling you, with similes like this, I should have been a novelist!).  They did what anyone would do in their shoes, they pleaded with the Supreme Court to review the appellate ruling.

Alas, it was to no avail.  Yesterday, the Supremes in their infinite wisdom declined to hear the case (only Justice Werdegar voted in favor of review), thereby leaving the tip jar $86 million short, according to the plaintiffs. 

So now what?  It's not clear there is any more steam in this engine (I'm on a roll).  The appellate court ordered that judgment be entered in Starbuck's favor, and that's apparently the end of it.

Or is it?  According to the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, it is already gearing up for a new class action, this one (according to the Union's website) based on alleged use of "harsh police-style interrogation tactics" that has led to "numerous false confessions, which Starbucks has then used to terminate or extort 'restitution' from employees."

As I said before:  "I think I’ll grab my decaf cappuccino and watch the show."

Read More

Just how "unique" is California employment law?

We asked our panel of experts to come up with their TOP 10 list of uniquely California employment laws, rules, and regulations.  Here were the first ten to pop to mind:

1) VACATION PAY– Unlike virtually every other state, California does not allow employers to have “use it or lose it” vacation policies.  Instead, California requires employers to either cash out their employees’ accrued vacation at the end of the year or allow them to carry it over up to a “reasonable cap” on accrual.

^{[thanks to Alan Light for the photo
of the Top 10 King!]}

Read More

Can you deduct from an employee's paycheck a debt owed by the employee to the employer?  What about the cost of a computer the employee purchased from the employer?  Parking charges?  Personal mailing charges?  The dry cleaning bill to get the coffee stain out of the rug in the employee's office?

Beware!  Deducting anything but taxes and health insurance premiums from employees’ paychecks could set up a ready-made wage class action.

Read More

There seems to be no end to the depths to which the stock market can sink, nor the heights to which new employment class action lawsuits can rise.  Coincidence?  A direct correlation makes sense.  As the economy sputters, jobs are lost.  When jobs are lost, lawsuits are filed.  When many jobs are lost all at once, class actions abound.  But this seems pretty simplistic.
_{^{(Our thanks to Heartlover1717 for the photo)}}

Read More