 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Was Gattuso v. Hart Hanks Really A Win For Employers?
By Kathleen M.K. Carter, Managing Principal, Hollins Law
The legal question framed by the Court in interpreting California Labor Code section 2802 was "May an employer satisfy [its] statutory obligation [to indemnify employee expenses] by paying employees increased wages or commissions instead of separately reimbursing them for their actual expenses?"
View Full Article
Expenses case could rock businesses
By Pamela A. MacLean, Staff Reporter, The National Law Journal
The California Supreme Court has taken on a little-noticed employment case that will determine whether an employer must reimburse employees for specific out-of-pocket job expenses or can simply raise pay and call things even.
View Full Article
Why Skipping a Meal (Period) Can Be Bad For Your Business
By Kathleen M.K. Carter, Managing Principal Hollins Law
By now, most California employers are well aware that California law generally requires all employees be provided a meal period of not less than 30 minutes within the first five hours of work. An employee who does not receive a legally compliant meal period is entitled to one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation. By way of example, an employee working an eight hour day and not furnished a meal period within the first five hours of work is actually entitled to a total of nine hours worth of compensation.
View Full Article