Takeaways

  1. California wage and hour laws can apply to out-of-state employees working temporarily in California, even for short assignments.
  2. Employers must account for California’s minimum wage requirements, including higher local rates in certain cities and counties.
  3. California imposes daily overtime requirements and mandatory meal and rest periods that may differ from employees’ home-state rules.

Background

California labor laws are some of the most comprehensive and restrictive in the country. California’s power to protect workers within its borders is not limited by whether the worker is a nonresident or employed by a nonresident. California has made significant efforts to ensure the rights of anyone working in California, including those nonresident employees assigned to work in California on a temporary or short-term basis. The state’s wage and hour labor laws protect nonresident employees working in California for the duration of their assignment, regardless of how short it is. This includes compliance with minimum wage laws, overtime pay requirements based on the eight-hour day, mandatory meal and rest breaks, and other related labor regulations. See the California Supreme Court decision in Sullivan v. Oracle, 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011) (Oracle), wherein the California Supreme Court decisively ruled that the California Labor Code applied to overtime work performed in California by out-of-state plaintiffs for a California-based employer. The Oracle Court found that a full day or more of work by an otherwise non-California, non-exempt employee would be subject to California’s daily overtime law. These wage and hour laws, however, do not apply to Company employees working on California employment issues remotely from other states.

Continue Reading California Wage and Hour Laws: What Employers Must Know About Temporary Out-of-State Workers

Takeaways

  1. Answering emails, responding to texts, and completing assignments after hours can create compensable work time for remote employees.
  2. Clear timekeeping policies, accurate recordkeeping, and supervisor training can help employers reduce the risk of off-the-clock wage claims.
  3. Employers with remote workers in multiple states must account for applicable state-specific wage, overtime, and employment law requirements.

As the number of employees working from home in the post-COVID era has increased, so too have wage and hour claims filed by remote employees. This article discusses the most common issues and steps employers should take to ensure they are not facing off against employees in court.

Continue Reading Wage and Hour Compliance for Non-Exempt Remote Employees: What Employers Need to Know

On July 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Administrator issued two Opinion Letters. The letters focus on a common issue facing employers today: when travel involving nonexempt remote or hybrid employees must count as hours worked and thereby are compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Although Opinion Letters are not binding law, they explain how the Department of Labor construes the FLSA and therefore provide valuable guidance to employers. Importantly, when employers rely on opinion letters, in lawsuits asserting FLSA violations on the issues covered by the Opinion Letters, they will be immune from liability for back overtime pay and liquidated damages even if a court ultimately disagrees with the Administrator’s opinion.

Continue Reading When Is Travel by Remote Workers or Workers Without Fixed Worksites Compensable? DOL Publishes Guidance for Employers

On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released three new Advice Memoranda. These memoranda explain why the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel decided that the underlying unfair labor practice charges in three cases should not move forward.

Unlike formal Board decisions, Advice Memoranda do not create new law. Instead, they provide insight into how the General Counsel evaluates workplace disputes and can offer practical guidance for employers and HR professionals. In essence, they reflect the General Counsel’s view on the meaning and scope of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). These views sometimes change since they reflect the views of whoever is the General Counsel at any particular moment in time, and these memoranda are in many respects contrary to the prior General Counsel. The General Counsel is the NLRB’s chief prosecutor and is appointed by the President. The General Counsel decides which unfair labor practice charges will be prosecuted, and then it is up to the NLRB to decide whether the General Counsel properly applied the law and otherwise proved its case.

Each of these new memoranda and their significance is summarized below.

Continue Reading NLRB General Counsel Releases Three Advice Memoranda: What Union and Non-Employers Should Know

Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court declined to create a bright-line rule that automatically exempts transportation workers from the Federal Arbitration Act.
  • The decision leaves several important questions unresolved, including how the exemption applies in certain business-to-business delivery relationships.
  • Despite early headlines, Flowers Foods does not broadly eliminate arbitration for transportation workers and instead reinforces the need for careful, fact-specific analysis.

On May 28, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 146 S. Ct. 1358 (2026). The Court held that workers transporting goods within a state’s borders, as part of an “intrastate” journey, could qualify for the exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for workers engaged in “interstate commerce.” Many news outlets and Plaintiffs’ firms stated that the Flowers opinion was a big win for transportation workers, who may now pursue their claims in court instead of being compelled to arbitrate under the FAA. However, a nuanced review of the unanimous opinion, written by Justice Gorsuch, shows the Court’s refusal to adopt any bright-line rules regarding the exemption is good news for employers with transportation workers.

Continue Reading Supreme Court’s Flowers Foods Decision: Why Employers Still Have Strong Arguments for Enforcing Arbitration Agreements

The Current Landscape

Generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools are now widely used across the workforce, and the use is dual track, meaning employees are using AI to perform work, while employers are deploying AI-enabled tools to manage and make decisions about their workforce. This creates a recurring tension between efficiency gains and the need for control, accuracy, and fairness, particularly because law and organizational governance often evolve more slowly than technology itself. A practical challenge is and will be that many employers do not fully understand how (or how often) employees are using AI tools in day-to-day work.

Continue Reading AI in the Workplace: Legal Risks and Practical Realities

Takeaways

  • The current federal salary threshold for most white-collar overtime exemptions remains $684 per week ($35,568 annually) under the reinstated 2019 rule.
  • Employers should immediately review exempt employee classifications and compensation practices to ensure compliance with the restored Part 541 framework and applicable state laws.
  • Because state salary thresholds and exemption requirements may exceed federal standards, multi-state employers should confirm compliance under both federal and state wage-and-hour laws.

On April 26, 2024, the Department of Labor issued a final rule raising the earnings thresholds for entitlement to overtime under the FLSA in the Code of Federal Regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 541. In November 2024, however, a federal court vacated and set aside the that Final Rule on a nationwide basis. As a result: (1) the increase in overtime threshold scheduled to become effective January 1, 2025 did not go into effect; (2) the July 1, 2024 increase that previously went into effect was nullified; and (3) the final rule’s automatic “escalator” provision, which would have increased the threshold every three years going forward, was also found to be unlawful.

Continue Reading Department of Labor Issues Technical Amendment Restoring Pre-2024 Part 541 Regulatory Overtime Exemption Framework

The Department of Labor announced, April 22, 2026, a new Proposed Rule on who can be a joint employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). Concerns over who may be deemed a joint employer—and thereby liable for the wrongs of either party to the joint employer relationship—typically arise in franchisor/franchisee or contractor/subcontractor relationships. In 2020, the DOL finalized a similar rule, but that rule was rejected by a court. The Proposed Rule attempts to conform to that court’s concerns. It also offers a uniform standard for assessing joint employer status under these three statutes.

This article provides a brief overview of the Proposed Rule’s key provisions and what employers need to know as the Proposed Rule moves through the public comment period.

Continue Reading The Latest Attempt by the DOL To Adopt Standards on Determining Joint Employer Status Under the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA

Despite a relatively high-profile pivot away from a Biden-era rule ostensibly banning non-competition agreements nationwide last year, the Federal Trade Commission recently threatened to come down hard on a large employer in the pest control industry that was indiscriminately requiring the majority of its over 18,000 employees to sign stringent non-competition agreements. The company, Rollins, Inc., which is responsible for the pest control brands Orkin, Critter Control, and HomeTeam, agreed to end its blanket non-compete policy by way of a consent order entered into with the FTC.

Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Flexes Its Muscles On Non-Competition Agreements

On March 19, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”) does not incorporate the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) exclusions for pre- and post-shift work. The Court’s ruling in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 2026 IL 132016, will significantly expand the compensability of pre-shift work under Illinois law, even if such work would otherwise not be compensable under the FLSA. This distinction significantly increases the importance of state-specific wage compliance for Illinois employers.

Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules That Amazon’s Pre-Shift COVID Tests Are Compensable Under Illinois Wage Law