In 2006, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide an issue of great importance to California employers by granting review in the case Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.

The case involved a misclassified store manager that included a claim for meal and rest period payments pursuant to Labor Code §226.7.  At the Court of Appeal stage, it was held that the payment of missed meal periods was a wage rather than a penalty so that a three-year rather than a four-year statute of limitations applied. Read More

Effective July 1, 2015, nearly all California employers will be required to provide employees with a minimum of three (3) days of paid sick leave annually. The sick leave may be used for the diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, or preventive care for an employee or an employee’s family member.

Under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, employers may either: (A) permit employees to accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one (1) hour per every thirty (30) hours worked, beginning from the employee’s date of hire (or July 1, 2015, whichever is later); or (B) provide employees at least 24 hours or three (3) days of paid sick time at the beginning of each year of employment. Read More

Does One Year Or Three Year Statute Of Limitation Apply?

At the heart of most wage and hour class action lawsuits is the claim that employers failed to provide employees with statutorily required meal and rest periods.  When violations occur, employees are entitled to receive one hour of pay for each day that the break is not provided.

Over the past months, employers and employees have fought over the characterization of the additional hour of pay that an employee is entitled to receive when a violation occurs.  Read More

Many of Tharpe & Howell’s clients act as both motor carriers and transportation brokers. When interstate cargo is lost or damaged, the distinction can be critical because a “motor carrier” is subject to the strict liability provisions of the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. Section 14706), while a “broker” is only liable if negligence is proved. There is no rigid test to determine carrier vs. broker status, but the recent decision of the California Court of Appeals provides clarification. Read More

Some attorneys are known for being long-winded time wasters who act with little regard for efficiency, especially when billing at an hourly rate. Although we believe the length of a deposition is often dictated by the witness’ relevancy and the complexity of each case, California law AB 1875 now limits the deposition of any person in a civil action to no more than seven hours.

California’s AB 1875 (which came into effect on January 1, 2013) contains some noteworthy exceptions to the seven hour limit. Read More