§Why CasetextPricing

Declaration

undefined

11 Cited authorities

  1. S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 448 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage

  2. Noe v. Superior Court (Levy Premium Foodservice Partnership)

    237 Cal.App.4th 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 85 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 1194 "imposes a duty on every employer to ensure its employees receive . . . overtime compensation"

  3. Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.

    754 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 37 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where “Affinity supplied the drivers with the major tools of the job by encouraging or requiring that the drivers obtain the tools from them through paid leasing arrangements,” this factor favored employee status

  4. Mamika v. Barca

    68 Cal.App.4th 487 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 55 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Mamika, the Court agreed with the plaintiff's calculation, where "[the plaintiff] calculated this amount by dividing his annual salary of $60,000 by 52 weeks ($1,153.

  5. On-Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur

    149 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “for purposes of the Labor Code, the salaries of executives are protected wages”

  6. Oto, L. L.C. v. Kho

    14 Cal.App.5th 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    In OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 691, the court found the parties' agreement to be procedurally unconscionable where "the arbitration clause is visually impenetrable" because it was "[w]ritten in a single block, without paragraphs to delineate different topics," and "the font chosen is so small as to challenge the limits of legibility.

  7. Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.

    226 Cal.App.3d 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 29 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that cab drivers provided service to cab company because “the enterprise could no more survive without [drivers] than it could without working cabs”

  8. Section 203 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 203   Cited 6,971 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "custom or practice" under a collective-bargaining agreement can make changing clothes noncompensable

  9. Section 3357 - Presumption person employee

    Cal. Lab. Code § 3357   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor, or unless expressly excluded herein, is presumed to be an employee. Ca. Lab. Code § 3357 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.

  10. Section 2870 - Inventions developed by employee on own time

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2870   Cited 29 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Providing that invention assignment contracts that are open-ended with respect to time and subject matter are against public policy and therefore unenforceable

  11. Section 2872 - Notice that agreement inapplicable to inventions qualifying under section 2870

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2872   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1980, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in any invention to his or her employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention which qualifies fully under the provisions of Section 2870. In any suit or action arising thereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the employee