By Samuel Rose and Megan Shaked
A few months ago, we wrote a blog article on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., which held that premium pay for meal and rest break violations is considered “wages,” paving the way to award waiting time and wage statement penalties based on meal/rest period violations alone. 
We noted that the practical impact of the Naranjo decision could be to encourage class action and PAGA (Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act) litigation within California by providing further remedies in meal and rest period litigation and inflating the settlement value of these cases.
Now, we are starting to see the real impacts of the Naranjo decision. The California Court of Appeal has issued its decision in Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC after remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider its initial opinion in light of Naranjo. Originally, the Court of Appeal decided in Betancourt that, based on Kirby v. Inmoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, an action brought for failure to provide meal and rest breaks is not based on nonpayment of wages. That meant that the Plaintiff could not recover for waiting time penalties and wage statement violations, and that the Plaintiff could not recover attorney fees under Labor Code section 218.5(a).
In applying Naranjo, the Court of Appeal in Betancourt had to reverse course, confirming that Continue reading
In 2013, the Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 350, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “Union”) kicked off this almost decade-long controversy by petitioning the NLRB for representation of workers that it asserted were joint employees of Leadpoint Business Services and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (“BFI”). Since then, the NLRB and the DC Circuit Court have issued numerous and, more often than not, contradictory rulings, culminating with this 
The initial iteration of the law, titled the “District of Columbia Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (the “Act”), prohibited employers from requiring employees who perform work in Washington D.C. (or a prospective employee whom the employer reasonably anticipated would perform work in Washington, DC), from signing any agreement that included a non-compete provision. The Act also made it unlawful for employers to have any workplace policy prohibiting employees from (i) being employed by another person; (ii) performing work or providing services for pay for another person; or (iii) operating their own business. In other words, the Act rendered virtually all non-compete provisions unenforceable and forbade employers from instituting workplace policies, such as anti-moonlighting rules, that limit employees’ ability to work for other people or start their own business.