›New Proposed Bill In California Would Change Labor Code to Bar Mandatory Employee Agreements to Litigate Disputes Outside California or Apply Non-California Law - On February 7, 2011, California Assembly Member Sandré R. Swanson (D-Alameda) created A.B. 267. The Bill would amend the California Labor Code by adding a new §924. As stated in the Legislative Counsel's Digest, the consequence would be to "make void and unenforceable as against public policy any provision in an employment contract that requires an employee, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, to use a forum other than California, or to agree to a choice of law other than California law, to resolve any dispute with an employer regarding employment-related issues that arise in California." Because the proposed law would only restrict such provisions if required "as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment," the text of new §924 would not "affect[] the right of an employee to voluntarily agree to a choice of law or forum selection provision that is not required as a condition of employment and that is the subject of independent consideration."

›Court Construes Wage Statement and Reporting Pay Provisions of Labor Code - In Price v. Starbucks Corp., 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 186 (Jan. 20, 2011), the Court of Appeal upheld dismissal and summary judgment entered against a plaintiff employee on a variety of wage claims. The employee had alleged that the company failed to offer wage statements that complied with California Labor Code §226. The court ruled that in order to recapture under §226, an employee must undergo injury as a consequence of a violation of the statute - and the mere lack of the information alone is not sufficient injury. In so holding, the court distinguished those cases finding that injury is satisfactorily alleged for a §226 violation where the workers were required to perform computations to study whether the wages paid in fact rewarded them for all time worked.
The appellate court also reinforced the lower court's ruling for the defendant on the plaintiff's claim that he wasn't paid as much as necessary for coming to work for a meeting concerning his employment. The court construed the arrival time pay requirement at issue to turn on the employee's expectation of the number of hours she would be working that day. Because the employee was not expecting to work a shift that day - but instead, was reporting basically for a meeting - the employee was entitled only to the minimum pay provided for in the wage order, two hours worth.

This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.