Journal
Employers often require employees to sign pre-employment contracts that contain an arbitration clause or agreement as a condition of being hired. These mandatory arbitration agreements may be unenforceable in California if they are found to be unconscionable.
Certain employees are exempt from overtime pay, minimum wage, and meal and rest period requirements. The administrative exemption is commonly misapplied to employees who perform some type of administrative work, such as employees who work in human resources and accounting.
After years of debate, the Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to impose new rules on Airbnb and HomeAway rentals. Under the new rules, properly registered hosts could offer up their homes for up to 120 days per year. For more information read: L.A. approves new rules for Airbnb-type rentals after years of debate
Many Hosts Are Operating Unlawful Hotels Says a Report from the American Hotel & Lodging Association and Consultant CBRE Hotels
An employee may be paid by “piece-rate” or “piece work” compensation. Piece-rate or piece work compensation is defined as “[w]ork paid for according to the number of units turned out.” DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual § 2.5.1. Some examples of piece-rate or piece work compensation are:
1. Automobile mechanics paid on a “book rate” (i.e., brake job, one hour and fifty minutes, tune-up, one hour, etc.) usually based on the Chilton Manual or similar;
2. Nurses paid on the basis of the number of procedures performed;
3. Carpet layer paid by the yard of carpet laid;
4. Technician paid by the number of telephones installed;
5. Factory worker paid by the widget completed;
6. Carpenter paid by the linear foot on framing job.
DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual § 2.5.2.
California Labor Code § 226.2 went into effect on January 1, 2016, and includes new requirements for employers who pay employees on a piece-rate basis.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that military style "assault weapons," including certain semi-automatic weapons, are not protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kolbe v. Hogan, ___ F. 3d. ____, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2930, (4th Cir. 2017), which may be read here, the Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland law that outlawed certain assault weapons. Md. Code Ann., Crim Law § 4-303. The ban included over 40 identified weapons including the Colt AR-15, the Bushmaster semi-auto rifle, and the AK-47. Md. Code Ann., Crim Law 5-101(r)(2).
In Kolbe, the State of Maryland was sued by a number of gun rights activists supported by the NRA for violated the Second Amendment by enforcing the law. In response, the State of Maryland argued that the targeted assault weapons were weapons of war and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. Both parties cited to the seminal United States Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), authored by Justice Antonin Scalia. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the State of Maryland..
Your employee violates a clear and established company policy which results in a lawsuit against the company. The employee is named in the lawsuit as well. Does the company have the obligation to pay for the employees defense despite the employee's clear negligence?
The answer is YES.
Premises zoned residential, such as R1, R2 and R3, in the City of Los Angeles should not be rented through Airbnb or similar services.
Current zoning laws in the City of Los Angeles prohibit short-term rentals in residential zones, such as R1, R2 and R3. Residential zones given the “R” designation are intended to provide a quiet living environment, free of commercial, business and industrial activities. Operation of residential premises as a hotel, hostel, bed and breakfast, or similar commercial enterprise is not permitted under an R1, R2 or R3 designation. See L.A.M.C., Ch. I, Art. 2, §§ 12.03, 12.08, 12.09, 12.10. The Los Angeles Municipal Code lists allowed uses of these residential designations. Notably missing from the permitted uses is the use of residential premises as a hotel, hostel, bed and breakfast, or similar commercial enterprise
HOAs may be liable to homeowners if they prevent or hinder a homeowner's right of ingress or egress.
Homeowners cannot be barred from ingress or egress (right of entry or exit) to their units and cannot be barred from physical access to their units, unless:
1. The HOA has a court order or an arbitration award;
2. Construction is in progress;
3. A hazardous condition exists; or
4. The unit is uninhabitable or red tagged. Civil Code §§ 4505, 4510.
The Supreme Court has vacated Apple’s $399 million patent infringement damage award against Samsung. This substantial award was based on three Apple “Design Patents” which cover only “non-functional” aspects of the “design” or appearance of the IPhone such as the shape of the front and back of the phone. These design patents have nothing to do with the functionality of the phone. Still, Apple was able to convince the trial court that it should receive 100% of its claimed profits of its IPhone, not only those profits lost as result of Samsung’s infringement of the design. In fact, the district court refused to even allow Samsung to make the argument Apple’s profit on the design was far less than the profit on the entire IPhone.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled that should not have been prohibited from making the argument that Apple should have been limited to its profits on the design alone. See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc. Case No. 15-777 (December 6, 2016).
Where a party to an arbitration agreement is financially incapable of sharing the costs of arbitration, the Court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over the action and deny arbitration. See Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, 219 Cal.App.4th 87 (2013); see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2. Confronted with the issue of whether plaintiffs could be excused from the obligation to pay fees associated with arbitration, the Court of Appeal concluded they could. Roldan, 219 Cal.App.4th at 95. “If, as plaintiffs contend, they lack the means to share the cost of the arbitration, to rule otherwise might effectively deprive them of access to any forum for resolution of their claims against [defendants]. We will not do that. Of course, as the trial court recognized, we cannot order the arbitration forum to waive its fees.” Roldan, 219 Cal.App.4th at 96.
The California Supreme Court is once again reviewing consumer credit card arbitration agreements.
In December 2014, the California Court of Appeal held in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that California’s law against arbitrating claims for public injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the False Advertising Law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The appellate court declared that “the FAApreempts all state-law rules that prohibit arbitration of a particular type of claim because an outright ban, no matter how laudable the purpose, interferes with the FAA’s objective of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms.” Thus, the appellate court found in Citibank’s favor that arbitration agreements are enforceable even when they strip California credit card holders of the right to public injunctive relief. Now the California Supreme Court is reviewing that lower court ruling.
Whether or not California’s wage and hour laws apply to work performed out of state generally depends upon the circumstances of employment. In Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2017), the court rejected the argument that the “job situs” of the plaintiff was determinative as to whether the California Labor code applied. Instead, the Bernstein court explained that: “[i]nstead of considering principal ‘job situs’ in a vacuum, the California Supreme Court has endorsed a multifaced approach.