Tag Archives: Counsel

Fate Of Enjoined White Collar Overtime Rule Still Undecided: Unlikely To Defend Obama Administration Rule, The Trump Administration Stalls

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), minimum wage and overtime requirements do not apply to any employee covered by the “white collar” exemption. To be considered a white collar worker under that exemption, the FLSA requires the employee to be employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity. Although the FLSA does not set a minimum white collar salary level, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) previously issued regulations requiring, among other things, that an employee meet a minimum salary threshold to qualify for the exemption.

Continue reading

An Overview of Ban the Box Laws in California

Individuals with criminal records unquestionably have a more difficult time obtaining gainful employment than individuals without criminal records. In fact, in a 2007 study, only approximately 40 percent of employers in four major metropolitan areas reported that they would “definitely” or “probably” hire applicants with a criminal history.1 In the same study, which also looked at the rates of “call backs” or job offers for applicants with different demographics, job offers for whites with criminal records fall by about half, and are reduced by that much or more for black ex-convicts.2

Continue reading

What’s in a name? A battle for a transgender immigrant’s rights

While the United States continues to grapple with transgender rights—including the right to restroom access—transgender individuals across the globe often face severe persecution and torture on account of their gender identity. One difficulty transgender people encounter both domestically and abroad concerns the ability to ensure that their official documents bear the chosen names that match their gender. When trans immigrants seek to have their cases heard in U.S. immigration courts, it is important—but not always easy—to ensure that orders affecting their rights include both the name they were given at birth and the name that corresponds with their gender.

Continue reading

The LCLD Fellows Program: Building Relationships and Leadership Skills

I finished my term as Cozen O’Connor’s Fellow in the Leadership Counsel on Legal Diversity in March of 2017. The mission of this prestige program is to unite attorneys who work in firms and in corporate counsel offices for the purposes of networking, personal and career development, and the promotion of diversity within our profession.

Firms and corporations that are members of LCLD select one fellow per year to represent them in the program, and the selection process within those organizations is often very competitive.

Continue reading

California & the Federal Government Expand Laws to Eliminate Wage Disparity

California state legislature amended the Fair Pay Act to prohibit race and ethnicity-based wage differentials and to preclude employers from relying on salary history to justify the wage gaps. In addition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) finalized Regulations to require employers to collect and include wage data in EEO-1 Reports.

Continue reading

CFPA’s Anticipated Effect on Litigation

In our Winter 2015 E-Newsletter, we discussed the California Fair Pay Act (“CFPA”), which became effective January 1 of this year.  That article summarized the CFPA and how it amends section 1197.5 of the California Labor Code.  Section 1197.5, which was enacted in 1949, prohibits employers from paying employees  “less than employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”  In this article we discuss the CFPA’s anticipated effect on litigation.

Continue reading

Update regarding Uber Drivers – Litigation over Employment Status averted by Settlement

In the Fall 2015 issue of our newsletter included an article about Uber, and how it classifies drivers providing services using its online “service on demand” platform. As reported in that article, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, following an administrative hearing in Berwick v. Uber Technologies, Inc., rejected Uber’s position that the drivers were independent contractors, and found instead that they are employees. Although Uber appealed the case to the California Superior Court, the question argued before the court was not whether the plaintiff was an employee but whether an agreement she signed with Uber required her to submit her dispute to arbitration. The trial court decided that question against Uber, and the matter is now pending before a First District Appellate Court.

Continue reading