Topics
Contributors
- David F. Hauge
- Sanford L. Michelman
- Matthew R. Lasky
- Todd H. Stitt
- Kraig Ahalt
- Robert N. Berg
- Jason Blackstone
- Howard I. Camhi
- Ronald R. Camhi
- Stacey Chiu
- Jesse Contreras
- Seth E. Darmstadter
- Neil Eddington
- Robert D. Estrin
- Jeffrey D. Farrow
- Derrick Fong-Stempel
- Mark Frimmel
- Samantha Gavin
- John J. Giardino
- Tim Gorry
- Kelly M. Hagemann
- Mona Z. Hanna
- Claire Hoffman
- Ryan Hong
- Marc R. Jacobs
- Bryan Johnson
- Gozde Kabadayi
- Shaina L. Kinsberg
- Warren A. Koshofer
- Dana A. Kravetz
- Samuel M. Licker
- Vincent S. Loh
- Jennifer A. Mauri
- Amanda K. Monroe
- Megan J. Penick
- Michael S. Poster
- Mark B. Robinson
- Lara A. H. Shortz
- Adam Z. Solomon
- Peter L. Steinman
- Lazar Sterling-Jackson
- Scott D. Tenley
- Bianka E. Valbrun
- Stephen Weiss
- Matthew E. Yarbrough
Archives
Contact
Paul Zimmerman
pzimmerman@mrllp.com
310.299.5500
Showing 7 posts by Amanda K. Monroe.

Congress Has Spoken on Court Access for Victims of Workplace Harassment and Assault
In a rare show of bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate has just passed legislation arising out of the #MeToo movement that guarantees the victims of workplace sexual harassment or assault the ability to pursue litigation against their employers in court, as opposed to arbitration. (Read More)

f11photo © depositphotos.com
Michelman & Robinson Breaks Down the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
The House passed sweeping legislation Saturday to respond to the coronavirus outbreak, an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to expand access to free testing, provide $1 billion in food aid, and extend sick leave benefits to vulnerable Americans. Here, in question and answer form, Michelman & Robinson, LLP addresses some of the employment and tax implications of the bill that may be of particular interest to you.

phartisan © 123RF.com
Another Class Action-Related Gift to Employers from the U.S. Supreme Court
Nearly a year after its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, finding that class and collective action waivers contained in employer arbitration agreements are lawful and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken once more on the topic. This week, in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, the high court ruled that arbitration agreements must specifically contemplate class arbitration for that process to be invoked. (Read More)

everythingpossible © 123RF.com
More PAGA Claims on the Horizon After Epic
The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis– enabling class action arbitration waivers in the employment context – might have an unintended consequence in the form of more Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cases filed in California. This is especially true after the recent California Court of Appeals decision in Huff v. Securitas Securities Services USA, Inc. (Read More)

zhaojiankangphoto © 123RF.com
How Travel Time Factors into Payday: the Department of Labor Weighs In
So, you have non-exempt employees – ones without fixed daily schedules, yet entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act – who are required to travel for work. What portion of their time on the road will their paychecks reflect? This has been a sticky issue for employers and hourly employees. Thankfully, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor has provided guidance. (Read More)

FEDERICA TREMOLADA © 123RF.com
Flat Rate Bonuses and Overtime Pay: Another Win for California Employees
The California Supreme Court has continued its employee-friendly ways. This time in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 1123 (Cal. Mar. 5, 2018), a case dealing with flat rate bonuses.
It’s not unusual for employers to pay such bonuses to employees – for instance, attendance bonuses for those scheduled to work undesirable shifts – in the same pay period in which an employee works overtime. But when they do, questions arise as to exactly how overtime is calculated. (Read More)

FEDERICA TREMOLADA © 123RF.com
And on the Seventh Day, We Rest...Sometimes
The Labor Code in California appears to be pretty clear where it states that employees cannot work more than six consecutive days without a day of rest. But as is so common in the law, even this seemingly straightforward rule is subject to interpretation. And that’s exactly what the Ninth Circuit has done – with the help of some guidance from the California Supreme Court – in Mendoza v. Nordstrom Inc. (Read More)