<?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; wage/hour</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/wagehour/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>Sun, 06 May 2012 15:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/pellegrino-v-robert-half-international-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/pellegrino-v-robert-half-international-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ucl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal holds that a reduction in an attorneys&#8217; fees award for a tack-on UCL claim is not required in a wage and hour case.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/pellegrino-v-robert-half-international-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mccarther-v-pacific-telesis-group/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mccarther-v-pacific-telesis-group/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Supreme Court holds that Labor Code Sec. 233 does not apply to paid sick leave policies that provide for an uncapped number of compensated days off.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/mccarther-v-pacific-telesis-group/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chau v. Starbucks Corp.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chau-v-starbucks-corp/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chau-v-starbucks-corp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=686</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The significant language in this case is on page 16: &#8230;the legal principles prohibiting an employer from requiring an employee to share his or her personal top with the employer&#8217;s agent (&#8220;mandatory tip pooling&#8221;) do not logically apply to an &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chau-v-starbucks-corp/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/chau-v-starbucks-corp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sonic-calabasas-a-inc-v-moreno/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sonic-calabasas-a-inc-v-moreno/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 20:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Short version: valid arbitration agreements preclude Berman hearings if not explicit carveout is included. This is more or less the DLSE&#8217;s interpretation (Manual 36.3 et seq.), believe it or not.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sonic-calabasas-a-inc-v-moreno/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review granted: Pineda</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-pineda/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-pineda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 20:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pineda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big day. The Supreme Court also granted review in Pineda, a case relating to the statute of limitations on waiting time penalties (where the wages are paid). Is it 1, 3&#8230; or 4? I say 4 has to be considered &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-pineda/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-pineda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review granted: Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-lu-v-hawaiian-gardens/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-lu-v-hawaiian-gardens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 18:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tip pooling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m adding Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens to my track list. Link to the docket is here. I&#8217;m hoping that the California Supreme Court will articulate a clear rule on tip pooling. I&#8217;m not asking for a pro-employer (or pro-employee) decision. &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-lu-v-hawaiian-gardens/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/review-granted-lu-v-hawaiian-gardens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second District In Race To Complicate Tip Pooling Law</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/second-district-in-race-to-complicate-tip-pooling-law/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/second-district-in-race-to-complicate-tip-pooling-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[h/t Shaw Valenza. SV have good bloggers who know how to do law blogging, so I won&#8217;t repeat their work on Etheridge v. Reins Int&#8217;l Calif., Inc. What&#8217;s interesting is that this case sets out yet another standard for tip &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/second-district-in-race-to-complicate-tip-pooling-law/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/second-district-in-race-to-complicate-tip-pooling-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Budrow v. Dave &amp; Buster’s of California, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/budrow-v-dave-buster%e2%80%99s-of-california-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/budrow-v-dave-buster%e2%80%99s-of-california-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:08:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=574</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cal Labor Law nicely summarizes Budrow v. Dave &#38; Buster’s of California, Inc. This case overrules the DLSE and an older 2nd District case (or at least the DLSE interpretation of it) forbidding tip pooling for employees who don&#8217;t provide &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/budrow-v-dave-buster%e2%80%99s-of-california-inc/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/budrow-v-dave-buster%e2%80%99s-of-california-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Response on Brinker</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WageLaw posted an opinion piece on the Brinker case today. In the spirit of bloggy dialogue, I thought I would respond. Knapp writes that &#8220;[i]n recent years, defense lawyers have enjoyed a pro-business trend in California court decisions.  The Court &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/a-response-on-brinker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brewering Up A Storm</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brewering-up-a-storm/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brewering-up-a-storm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brewer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WageLaw has a good summary here, explaining the two differing theories and how this case makes the analysis much clearer. Funny titles aside, I was surprised WageLaw wasn&#8217;t more critical of this case, especially when I was (&#8220;Storm is his &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brewering-up-a-storm/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/brewering-up-a-storm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

