Labor Code Regulations in the Garment Industry

Useful Rulings on Labor Code Regulations in the Garment Industry

Recent Rulings on Labor Code Regulations in the Garment Industry

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

Third Sub-Cause of Action (Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.3).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ABBY RAO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS PETER BOSTANIAN, AN INDIVIDUAL

Thus, Defendant maintains Plaintiff’s claims fall under the Act codified in Labor Code section 1700, et seq., as to which original and exclusive jurisdiction is afforded to the Labor Commissioner, not the Superior Court.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GASTELUM-RIVERA VS ACE RELOCATION SYSTEMS INC [EFILE]

These allegations identified "the specific provisions" of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, as required by section 2699.3, subdivision (a)(1)(A). But with one exception, the 2009 Notice was a string of legal conclusions that parroted the allegedly violated Labor Code provisions. It did not state facts and theories supporting the alleged violations not implied by reference to the Labor Code.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on November 16, 2018 and asserts causes of action for (1) misclassification as independent contractor, (2) failure to reimburse reasonable business expenses under Labor Code section 2802, (3) failure to pay wages under Labor Code section 204, (4) failure to provide lawful wage statements under Labor Code section 226, (5) retaliation under Labor Code section 98.6, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Hearing

WAHAB VS. YRC INC.

Labor Code § 2350 which reads: Every factory, workshop, mercantile or other establishment in which one or more persons are employed, shall be kept clean and free from the effluvia arising from any drain or other nuisance, and shall be provided, within reasonable access, with a sufficient number of toilet facilities for the use of the employees.

  • Hearing

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Code §1102.5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Code §1102.5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.

Code § 12940(h)) (against the District); Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy (against the District); Whistleblower Retaliation (Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5) (against the District); Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Sexual Harassment (Violation of Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RONALD BALANAG, ET AL. V. LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

Finally, Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to” PAGA. The court’s review “ensur[es] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (Marshall’s of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

  • Hearing

ANA MORENO ET AL VS WIESS FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

The fifth cause of action is for failure to provide meal and rest periods—Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512. Labor Code § 512 provides in relevant part that “[a]n employer may not employee an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes. . . .”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

.; (7) declaratory judgment; (8) wrongful termination in violation [sic] the public policy of the State of California; (9) failure to pay wages due pursuant to California Labor Code, Sections 201, 1182.12, 1194, and 1194.2; (10) failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code, Sections 226.7 and 512; (11) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code, Section 226 et seq.; and (12) wait time penalties in violation of California Labor Code, Sections

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARITZA LUCERO ERNST VS EFRAIN DEL REAL

The application was made pursuant to Labor Code §98.2(b), which requires the appellant employer to post bond unless the appellant employer shows that she is indigent. The Court, without a hearing, ruled on the application on 5/13/20. The Court’s order indicates that the application is denied because Ernst failed to file any supporting declaration. Motion for Reconsideration On 5/28/20, Ernst filed this motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

BARBARA WONG VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant contends Labor Code § 3600 exclusive remedy rule bars Plaintiff’s derivative claims. The Court disagrees.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL FERRY V. CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT, INC. ET AL.

Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, 934 (Dynamex) and now codified in Labor Code section 2750.3 only applies “[f]or purposes of [the Labor Code] and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission.” This case does not concern those codes or orders but rather common law principles of respondeat superior.

  • Hearing

HECTOR MARTINEZ VS GREEN CUISINE, INC., ET AL.

Code § 1102.5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WARNER VS. FRY'S ELECTRONICS

Background of the Case and Terms of Settlement This a PAGA case (not a class action), alleging violations of the Labor Code concerning a number of issues. The primary issue concerns a “Pay Calculation Agreement,” under which salespersons paid on commission whose commission in a given pay period fell below minimum wage would be paid minimum wage for that period, but the difference would be treated as an advance and deducted from future commissions.

  • Hearing

HARVEY VS. ANAHEIM HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The non-FEHA cause of action – the Labor Code claim –does not involve a statute that expressly excepts an award of costs from the mandatory provisions of section 1032(b) like Government Code section 12965(b).

  • Hearing

MASON MCCONN VS UPS CARTAGE SERVICES INC ET AL

The SAC asserts causes of action for: Defamation; False Light Invasion of Privacy; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Fundamental Public Policy; Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; and Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 6310.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MASON MCCONN VS UPS CARTAGE SERVICES INC ET AL

The SAC asserts causes of action for: Defamation; False Light Invasion of Privacy; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Fundamental Public Policy; Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; and Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 6310.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELINOR BANKS ET AL. VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN ET AL.

Regarding Bruno’s argument that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available to Plaintiffs, he cites Labor Code, sections 3601 and 3602 [workers’ compensation is “the exclusive remedy for injury or death of an employee against any other employee of the employer acting within the scope of his or her employment”]. Bruno maintains that all of his actions and conduct were personnel decisions and thus, within the scope of his employment.

  • Hearing

WARNER VS. FRY'S ELECTRONICS

Attorney Fees, Costs, and Representative Service Award Labor Code section 2699(g)(1) provides that a prevailing employee in a PAGA action may recover attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs seek $999,000. While this is about 37% of the recovery, the fee is put forward on a lodestar basis. Thus, the issue is whether the hours spent and the hourly rates are reasonable. Because no multiplier is sought, the Court need not consider factors typically considered in such cases.

  • Hearing

JUWON LEE VS POL CLOTHING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 250,

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (meal and rest breaks), (2) violation of Labor Code §§ 510-515, 1194 and 1198 (unpaid overtime), (3) violation of Labor Code § 2802 (reimbursements), (4) violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12-1194 (minimum wage), (5) violation of Labor Code § 226(a) (inaccurate wage statements), (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310 (by Plaintiff Lee only), (7) retaliation in violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEANETTE FRANCE VS LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL

Conversely, Defendant argues that Plaintiff continued to reference her Labor Code § 132 (a) claim, despite having previously dismissed these claims. Moreover, Defendant states that the discovery conducted was routine and that they are only requesting the fees and costs incurred in the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that although Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to pretext, the complaint was not completely groundless or without a legal or factual basis.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TINA CHOI VS PBK AMERICA, A CALIFORNIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Under Labor Code §2922, an employment having no specific term, may be terminated at the will of either party, established a presumption of at-will employment if the parties have made no express oral or written agreement specifying the length of employment or the grounds for termination. Under this cause of action, plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully terminated without any reason and compensation after defendants “used her and took her capacity.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RONALD BALANAG, ET AL. V. LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

Finally, Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to” PAGA. Seventy-five percent of any penalties recovered under PAGA go to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), leaving the remaining twenty-five percent for the aggrieved employees. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380.)

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.