<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Storm&#039;s Employment Law &#187; DLSE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/dlse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:02:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>DLSE Pretends to Rescind Brinker Memo</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-pretends-to-rescind-brinker-memo/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-pretends-to-rescind-brinker-memo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Walsh has more. This is simply not acceptable. Why is Bradstreet (1) flouting the law, (2) encouraging a lawsuit against her department, (3) putting both employers and employees at risk here? This. Helps. No. One. Unacceptable.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-pretends-to-rescind-brinker-memo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DLSE Updates Manual To Reflect Brinker (huh?)</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to WageLaw and this memo posted by Shaw &#38; Valenza, the DLSE has changed their Field Manual to order enforcement along the lines of the recent Brinker case.  As far as I know, the case hasn&#8217;t been dismissed (the &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/dlse-updates-manual-to-reflect-brinker-huh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The $500 Attorneys&#039; Fees Case</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-500-attorneys-fees-case/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-500-attorneys-fees-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harrington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-500-attorneys-fees-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;d love to draw the conclusion that this is the Second District walking back the malign effects of the one cent recovery rule.  I&#8217;d love to draw the conclusion that evidence and word-of-mouth anecdotal evidence about the DLSE meant that &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-500-attorneys-fees-case/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/the-500-attorneys-fees-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WageLaw on Brinker</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wagelaw-on-brinker/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wagelaw-on-brinker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wagelaw-on-brinker/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WageLaw has an interesting update on Brinker, including a copy of the DIR&#8217;s request for publication.They note that: Proving that it is now little more than a political spoil, Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet also sought publication of the opinion, even though it contradicted a &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wagelaw-on-brinker/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wagelaw-on-brinker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast for the week of 10/22/2007</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-10222007/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-10222007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-10222007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More on the DLSE.  Murphy v. Check &#8216;N Go briefly noted. [display_podcast]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/podcast-for-the-week-of-10222007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Does Everyone Diss the DLSE?</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was preparing to explore the theorizing that I and other bloggers did in the wake of Genrty that it would have implications for employment contracts in general, when I came across this footnote in the recent Murphy v. Check &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/why-does-everyone-diss-the-dlse/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Briefly noted: Sumuel v. ADVO, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/briefly-noted-sumuel-v-advo-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/briefly-noted-sumuel-v-advo-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DLSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overtime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salary basis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=315</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;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 &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/briefly-noted-sumuel-v-advo-inc/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/briefly-noted-sumuel-v-advo-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

