Category Archives: Uncategorized

GrubHub reclassification should be easy as ABC

Although Dynamex retroactivity is not guaranteed, the likelihood that an exception would be granted is about the same as winning the lottery.

by Gerald Sauer

Timing is everything. When a California district court ruled last February against GrubHub driver Raef Lawson’s contention that he and other drivers were misclassified as independent contractors, the state Supreme Court was two months away from issuing its landmark ruling in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court (April 30, 2018).

Lawson was thus deprived of the right to seek minimum wage, expense reimbursements and overtime to which he would have been entitled as an employee. With his request for remand denied on appeal, he sought reconsideration, asking the court to issue an indicative ruling or “at the very least state that the application of Dynamex in this case raises a substantial issue.”

Read more at DailyJournal.com (subscription required)

We Are All Victims of Google’s “China Syndrome”

by Gerald Sauer

If you Google “What is the world’s biggest private spying-services contractor?” the result should read: “Google.”

In November, Google employees published a letter of protest against Project Dragonfly, Google’s search engine for the Chinese market, alleging that the tool would facilitate government censorship of and spying on citizens. “Providing the Chinese government with ready access to user data, as required by Chinese law, would make Google complicit in oppression and human rights abuses,” they wrote. “Many of us accepted employment at Google with the company’s values in mind, including its previous position on Chinese censorship and surveillance, and an understanding that Google was a company willing to place its values above its profits.”

Read full story on Yahoo Finance

We Are All Victims of Google’s “China Syndrome”

by Gerald Sauer

If you Google “What is the world’s biggest private spying-services contractor?” the result should read: “Google.”

In November, Google employees published a letter of protest against Project Dragonfly, Google’s search engine for the Chinese market, alleging that the tool would facilitate government censorship of and spying on citizens. “Providing the Chinese government with ready access to user data, as required by Chinese law, would make Google complicit in oppression and human rights abuses,” they wrote. “Many of us accepted employment at Google with the company’s values in mind, including its previous position on Chinese censorship and surveillance, and an understanding that Google was a company willing to place its values above its profits.”

Read full story on Law360

In its story on rapper 2 Milly’s suit against the makers of popular video game Fortnite for allegedly stealing his signature dance move, Rolling Stone included Gerald Sauer’s analysis:

The question is whether 2 Milly’s 2015 move is fully formed enough to constitute intellectual property. “There’s not a lot of case law on this,” says Gerald L. Sauer, a copyright attorney with Sauer & Wagner in Los Angeles. “Commonplace movements and gestures aren’t covered. Yoga positions: no. All these celebratory moves and dances in the NFL — those are not going to be covered. The Village People spelling out letters with their arms — that’s not going to qualify. [Courts] want to see a registrable choreographed work executed by skilled performers before an audience.”

Read the full story at Rolling Stone

California Court Holds Commute Between Home and Client Site is Not Compensable Time Under Voluntary Company Vehicle Take-Home Program

By Sonya Goodwin & C. Randolph Sullivan on December 13, 2018

In Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Co., a California court held that employees who drive between their homes and a client worksite (in this case, a customer’s residence) using a company vehicle under the company’s voluntary vehicle take-home program need not be compensated for the commute time.

Pacific Bell premises technicians install and repair internet services at customer’s homes.  Prior to 2009, the technicians were required to pick up a company-owned vehicle at a Pacific Bell garage, report to customers’ homes and then return the vehicle back to the garage at the end of the day.  The technicians worked an eight-hour shift and were paid from the time they arrived at the Pacific Bell garage until they returned the vehicle.  In 2009, the company initiated its Home Dispatch Program (HDP), which allowed the technicians to take the vehicles and tools and equipment home each night and go straight to the customer’s residence at the start of each shift.  The HDP program was completely voluntary, and the employees who chose to participate were required to go to the garage once a week to pick up the necessary tools and equipment.  Under the HDP, the technicians were paid from the time they arrived at the first customer’s residence until they left the last customer’s residence.  In other words, they were not paid to travel between their home and the customer’s residence at the start of the workday.  They were, however, paid to load their company vehicles with the equipment and tools on their weekly garage visit.

Read the rest at Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives