Monthly Archives: November 2019
Upsetting what many considered settled precedent, a California Court of Appeal has held that a mandatory service charge may qualify as a “gratuity” under California Labor Code Section 351 that must be distributed to the non-managerial employee(s) who provided the service.
In O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc., No. A148513, plaintiff, a banquet server and bartender, filed a putative class action against their employer for its failure to distribute the entirety of the proceeds of an automatic 21% fee added to every food and beverage banquet bill to the non-managerial banquet service employees who staffed the event, alleging a violation of California Labor Code Section 351, as well as intentional interference with advantageous relations, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
ROYAL OAK, Mich., November 12, 2019 – Howard & Howard is pleased to welcome Mary V. Pickard to the firm. She joins the Business and Corporate Group and will practice out of the Royal Oak office.
“I am an attorney who finds innovative and strategic solutions tailored to the client’s ever-changing needs.”
For the third year running, we held a Transition Year Law Day. This year, our Law Day was with the students of Colaiste Nano Nagle, Limerick. Twenty-one students took part. The Law Day is an intensive version of our Transition Year Programme which was a finalist in the national Chambers Ireland CSR Awards. The day aims to teach students about careers in law as well as offer insight and skills training.
As I was scrolling through Instagram the other night, I came across a post from a former ILN lawyer (shoutout to Craig Levey) who announced that he’ll be running the Boston Marathon in 20 weeks. What’s more, he’s using those 20 weeks as an opportunity to spend a training session each week with “a local executive, entrepreneur, or Boston personality,” and sharing that on social media. This is something I just love, and it’s also something you can emulate, without having to run the Boston Marathon (though, if that’s your goal, more power to you!).
Chilean Aninat Schwencke & Cía. reinforces its areas of Intellectual Property, Technology and Innovation, and Competition
With the intention of strengthening its team, and due to significant challenges in key areas of intellectual property, innovation and technology, as well as competition, Chilean law firm Aninat Schwencke & Cía has added to its ranks Senior Counselors Maximiliano Santa-Cruz (Intellectual Property, New Technologies, and Innovation) and Sander van der Voorde (Competition); and as an external advisor on compliance matters Alejandra Vallejos.
California Ballot Initiative Would Remove Ride-Share and Delivery Drivers from the “ABC” Test Continue Reading…
As we wrote here recently, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill known as AB5, which is designed to make it more difficult for companies to treat workers as independent contractors. The new law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, codified and expands the “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.
On August 26, 2019, we wrote of the plan by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) to update the Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) regulations on calculating overtime pay for salaried non-exempt workers to allow employers to include additional forms of compensation in the so-called “fluctuating workweek” calculations. Under a fluctuating workweek calculation, an employer divides all of an employee’s relevant compensation for a given workweek by the total number of hours the employee worked in the week to derive the regular rate for that week, and then pays one half of that regular rate—in addition to the other pay the employee is receiving for the week—for each hour of overtime. This method of calculating overtime is available under federal law and in most, but not all, states. On November 4, 2019, the WHD released the text of the proposed rule for public comment.
While I’m out of the office today attending the Economist’s Annual General Counsel Conference in London, I’m bringing you another Rainmaking Recommendation from trainer and expert, Jaimie Field! I’m a big fan of Jaimie’s recommendations in this post, and use them myself – in fact, as a holdover from my days in high school (yes, that long ago), I still use a paper agenda to schedule my daily tasks, even breaking up long term projects so that I work on them a little bit every day to make progress. For me, it works really well to have a tangible list that I can cross things off of. I also create a monthly plan, which is tied into my overall operational plan for the ILN, which I review weekly to ensure that I’m maintaining continuity on my goals, and my organization’s goals.
While the seemingly endless wave of website accessibility cases filed by serial plaintiffs shows no signs of abating (a situation not helped by the United States’ Supreme Court’s denial of Domino’s Petition for Certiorari last month), those who follow accessibility law and the businesses who have been deeply affected by the relentless barrage of serial plaintiffs’ claims, have been waiting for the inevitable “next big thing” that the plaintiff’s bar would pursue en masse under Title III of the ADA.