This week I discuss Torrey Pines and judicial economy.

[display_podcast]

Happy Hanukkah.

Genomic discrimination, Torrey Pines, and more on Gattuso.

[display_podcast]

Just a few notes about the past week.

[display_podcast]The article referenced in the podcast is available here. 

More on the DLSE.  Murphy v. Check ‘N Go briefly noted.

[display_podcast]

This week we’re wrapping up this year’s legislative session, and touching on the Brinker opinion.
[display_podcast]

Short and sweet.

[display_podcast]

There’s a little more to this than implied by the advance sheets. (First District, No. A115921)

But plaintiffs also claim that such delayed payment, even if not a deduction from salary, violates the fundamental requirement of salaried employment that the employee regularly receive[] each pay period . . . a predetermined amount.” (Part 541.118(a), talics added.) We are not persuaded. No biweekly payroll system for a company of significant size can ensure that paychecks will not sometimes be delayed when an mployee is restored to the regular payroll following a return from disability or other ypes of leave. Such departures from precise regularity are no more antithetical to the concept of salaried compensation than payroll lags incident to an employee changing jobs or receiving a promotion or pay raise would be. As long as an employee in fact receives predetermined salary for each pay period that he or she works, such one-time deviations from the employee’s regular pay schedule do not in themselves destroy the employee’s salaried status.

(Slip. Op. at 8.) In short, the Court of Appeal upheld deductions from salary for a short-term absence plan that caused some delays as not causing a failure of the salary test, but it apparently did so by italicizing one clause instead of the other (i.e., each pay period).

The court also adjusted some of the DLSE’s language for it in their Interpretations Manual. (Slip Op. at 18.) “State required disability insurance benefits do not constitute a ‘bona fide’ sick leave plan” (DLSE Manual 51.6.16.1) means “State required disability insurance benefits do not constitute a ‘bona fide’ sick leave plan when it’s the exclusive plan means of repayment.”

The courts really love to kick the DLSE around, don’t they?

Anyway, I won’t be taking this as license to encourage people to take liberties with the timing of their salary payments.

Independent contractor misclassification becomes a bigger and bigger trend.

[display_podcast]

The Legislature is busy with other things this week, so we turn to the courts.

New developments on the end of the Legislature’s session.

I completed my interviews for this early, and I will be in Sacramento on business next week, so I wanted to be sure to get this up ASAP. Enjoy.

[display_podcast]