The president has widened his attack on federal worker unions just days before Labor Day. GovExec.com reports: “President Trump on Thursday signed a new executive order targeting unions at more than half a dozen agencies, again under the auspices of national security. The edict, which was published within minutes of Trump’s proclamation marking Monday’s Labor…
Imagine standing at a cash register for eight hours, day after day, without a single chance to sit. Or clocking in and realizing you won’t be paid for the last hour you worked. For decades, corporations treated these issues as minor complaints. But California workers fought back — and won millions. This blog covers the landmark seating and wage-hour cases that reshaped workplace rights. From CVS’s Supreme Court showdown to Walmart’s $65 million bombshell, these are stories of dignity, health, and the law. Case 1: Kilby v. CVS (2016 Supreme Court Decision) CVS cashiers and customer reps stocked shelves, bagged groceries, cleaned counters — and rang up sales. Most tasks could have been done sitting. But CVS forbade it. The California Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that employers must examine each specific task: If a job reasonably permits sitting, seats must be provided. Employers cannot argue “the overall job requires standing” as an excuse. This case set the legal foundation for every settlement that followed. Case 2: Bank of America – $15 Million Settlement Tellers across California stood behind counters, even when processing paperwork or waiting on customers. The work could be done seated, but chairs were denied. After years of litigation, Bank of America paid $15 million. Three named plaintiffs received $25,000 each. Workers collectively received millions in payouts. BofA had to implement a new seating policy and inform employees of their rights. As one teller put it: “We weren’t asking for luxury. We just wanted chairs.” Case 3: Safeway – $12 Million Settlement Cashier Eva Sharp led a class action spanning nearly eight years. She and thousands of Safeway cashiers stood long shifts without stools, despite registers allowing seating. The 2019 settlement totaled $12 million: Eva received ~$14,000. 30,000+ cashiers split about $1.8 million. Safeway promised to supply seating for two years. It was a small fortune for many minimum-wage workers — and proof persistence pays off. Case 4: Target – $9 Million Settlement Target’s bright red stores carried a dark reality: over 90,000 cashiers in California were denied seating. The company agreed to pay $9 million, with roughly $3.9 million in attorney fees. Though workers’ individual payouts were modest, the scale was enormous — showing how widespread the issue was. Case 5: Walmart – $65 Million Bombshell The largest seating case ever. Nearly 100,000 Walmart cashiers joined forces after years of standing at registers. Walmart agreed to pay $65 million in 2018. Individual payouts reached $25,000 per worker. Walmart changed practices nationwide. It wasn’t just a California win. It set off a national conversation: do workers deserve dignity at the register? The answer was clear. Case 6: AutoZone (Meda v. AutoZone, 2022) AutoZone claimed it “provided seats.” In reality, two chairs were tucked away in management areas, far from the registers. Workers didn’t even know they could sit. The court ruled that “mere availability” isn’t enough. Seats must be accessible at the workstation. Workers must be informed they’re allowed to sit. This case clarified that employers can’t just check a box — they must genuinely make seating available. Case 7: Ralphs (LaFace v. Ralphs, 2022) In a rare loss for workers, Ralphs argued its cashiers never had downtime. Courts agreed, ruling that constant customer flow meant no obligation to provide seating. The case also confirmed that PAGA seating claims are bench trials (decided by judges, not juries). This showed the law isn’t automatic — context matters. Broader Impact These cases changed more than policy. They changed lives: Health: Less back pain, fewer leg injuries. Dignity: Workers finally treated like humans, not props. Financial Relief: Payouts gave families breathing room. And beyond California, they inspired other states and employers to review seating rules voluntarily. Conclusion From CVS to Walmart, workers proved one truth: when they stand together, they win the right to sit. At WRCA, we fight to keep this momentum going. 
Join WRCA today. Subscribe, share, and support workers’ rights.
A former union leader is now the prime minister of a European country. EuroNews reports: “Lithuania’s parliament elected a former labour union leader and relative political newcomer as the country’s new prime minister on Tuesday, weeks after her predecessor resigned following investigations into his business dealings. Lawmakers approved Inga Ruginienė as the new head of government…
Labor Day is around the corner and that means parades, a salute to labor successes, and, of course, picnics! Support good union jobs this Labor Day with our exclusive shopping guide above and use your wallet to support a better economy for workers. Happy Labor Day from all of us at Labor 411 Hot Dogs,…
Feature Films “On the Waterfront” (1954) “The Molly Maguires” (1970) “Norma Rae” (1979) “Matewan” (1987) “Bread and Roses” (2000) “North Country” (2005) “Made in Dagenham” (2010) Documentaries “Native Land” (1942) “American Factory” (2019) “Roger & Me” (1989) “Harlan County U.S.A.” (1976) “The Willmar 8” (1982) “At the River I Stand” (1993) “Miles of Smiles: Years…
When a video of a single mother running an entire Burger King shift by herself went viral, the internet rallied in support. Here was a woman, balancing motherhood with back-breaking work, keeping an entire restaurant afloat alone. Yet instead of recognition, she was fired. Her story exposes the painful truth faced by millions of American workers: dedication doesn’t guarantee dignity.
The fast-food industry has long relied on underpaid and overworked employees. Hamilton’s story is not unique—many workers are asked to carry unreasonable workloads with little support. When they push back or fall short due to family responsibilities, employers often punish rather than protect them. For working parents, especially single mothers, this creates an impossible cycle: work long hours to provide for your kids, but lose your job if childcare interferes.
Federal labor law requires safe and reasonable working conditions, and some states—including California—have stronger protections for parents. Yet loopholes abound. Employers often cite “attendance” or “policy violations” to cover up retaliation, leaving workers vulnerable. In Hamilton’s case, the company policy prohibited employees from working alone—yet enforcement only came after she went viral. This contradiction exposes how policies are selectively applied, usually to the worker’s detriment.
In California, recent cases involving retaliation against caregivers show courts beginning to side with employees. But nationally, protections remain patchy. Without strong advocacy and enforcement, more parents will face the same cruel choice: job or family.
Hamilton’s words resonate with so many: “My kids come first… y’all don’t pay for no babysitter.” Millions of parents are forced into the same trade-off. Low wages don’t cover childcare, yet missing work risks termination. The result? Burnout, poverty, and broken families—all while billion-dollar corporations profit.
Her viral video made her a symbol of resilience, but the firing revealed the fragility of worker protections in industries built on exploitation.
Stories like Hamilton’s are why the Workers Rights Compliance Alliance (WRCA) exists. Workers should never be punished for protecting their families. By joining WRCA, you can help hold corporations accountable, demand fair scheduling, and push for laws that prioritize human dignity.
No parent should have to choose between their job and their children. Stand with us—because workers deserve better.
Over the summer, I like to expand my reading list into different topics. This year I discovered Rory Sutherland and his book Alchemy: The Power of Ideas That Don’t Make Sense. Sutherland is a British marketing executive and vice chairman of Ogilvy, but his insights go far beyond advertising. His book weaves together ideas from economics, psychology, evolutionary biology, and philosophy. It’s packed with practical wisdom for personal growth as well as for running and marketing a business.
While the book is full of insights on nearly every page, here are five key takeaways that I found especially relevant for employers and business leaders.
Sutherland argues that the best ideas often come from unexpected places. He urges readers not to rely solely on logic, but also to leave room for chance, counterintuitive thinking, and the quirks of human psychology.
One of his fascinating examples comes from bee colonies: roughly 20% of bees ignore the “waggle dance” instructions that tell them where to find pollen. Instead, they set off in random directions, often discovering new sources of food. Without these “adventurer bees”—which I like to think of as modern venture capitalists—the hive would eventually fail once its known sources ran dry.
Takeaway: There’s risk mitigation in being unpredictable. Businesses benefit when they experiment, explore new opportunities, and avoid becoming entirely predictable.
Sutherland introduces the idea of “psycho-logic”:
“Logic is what makes a successful engineer or mathematician, but psycho-logic is what has made us a successful breed of monkey, that has survived and flourished over time. This alternative logic emerges from a parallel operating system within the human mind, which often operates unconsciously, and is far more powerful and pervasive than you realize. Rather like gravity, it is a force that nobody noticed until someone put a name to it.”
He points out that strict logic always leads to the same place as your competitors. The problem is that business often underestimates—and even ignores—the role of psychology in determining whether a product or service succeeds.
Takeaway: Employers and business leaders should remember that psychology, not just logic, drives customer and employee behavior.
Sutherland makes an important observation:
“[W]e are much more likely to take risks when hiring ten people than when hiring one.”
This, he argues, can naturally lead to more diversity without imposing quotas. He even says he’d interview a candidate with a “rotten” degree if that person were also the reigning under-25 UK backgammon champion. Why? Because unusual achievements signal qualities you won’t uncover by applying identical hiring criteria across the board.
Takeaway: Be wary of hiring averages. Standardized criteria produce standardized hires. Employers who take calculated risks in hiring can uncover exceptional and unexpected talent.
Sutherland describes two business models:
The latter model is built on trust. For example, businesses that resolve customer problems at their own expense demonstrate they are invested in long-term relationships. On the other hand, businesses that squeeze for short-term profits often come across as untrustworthy.
Takeaway: Employers should ask themselves whether they’re building for one-time transactions—or building for loyalty.
Sutherland explains:
“Without the feedback loop made possible by distinctive and distinguishable petals or brands, nothing can improve.”
His example comes from Soviet factories, which were once required to produce a quota of rivets each month. Since the rivets couldn’t be stamped with the factory’s name, no one could tell which factories were producing poor-quality rivets. Over time, the incentive to care about quality disappeared – and the factories found it was easier to hit monthly quotas of rivets of poor-quality. Without names, the rivets became commodities. Once factories were required to stamp their names on the rivets, quality improved dramatically.
Takeaway: Branding provides accountability, feedback, and differentiation. Without it, quality suffers and products become commodities.
Alchemy is filled with unconventional wisdom that challenges the way we think about business and human behavior. These five lessons only scratch the surface, but they highlight the importance of embracing unpredictability, understanding psychology, taking smart risks in hiring, building long-term trust, and valuing the power of branding.
For employers, Sutherland’s message is clear: the best solutions often don’t make sense at first glance—but that’s exactly what makes them powerful.
The post Five Takeaways from Rory Sutherland’s Alchemy appeared first on California Employment Law Report.
I have some good news for California employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements. The California Supreme Court just held that non-payment of arbitration fees does not automatically waive the right to arbitrate. Employers still cannot engage in the strategic nonpayment of arbitration fees. However, when the nonpayment is the result of a good faith mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, then the right to arbitrate is not automatically extinguished. This is great news for California companies who want to keep employment claims in arbitration.
In the past, a simple calendaring error, or a bill that came in late and got lost in the shuffle, could trigger a motion by opposing counsel asserting a violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98, and essentially a waiver of the right to arbitrate. In fact, we blogged on this risk. Thankfully, the California Supreme Court ruled that a more fact-based inquiry was required, and as long as the mistake was genuine, and not gamesmanship, then a simple error would not waive the right to arbitrate.
This ruling makes sense. An inadvertent mistake should not punish the party seeking to arbitrate. Whew!
A mom who became famous for working an entire shift by herself at a fast food chain now been fired. Yahoo News reports: “Nykia Hamilton went viral in July after a customer recorded her working a shift entirely alone at a Burger King in Columbia, South Carolina. Despite her viral display of a tireless work…
Whether setting pay for a new hire or adjusting compensation for a current employee, employers must navigate a range of legal considerations. In this episode of California Employment News, Weintraub employment attorneys Meagan Bainbridge and Nikki Mahmoudi share key reminders to help employers stay compliant with California’s complex wage and hour laws.
Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.
Show Notes:
Meagan:
Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this installment of the California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub To. My name is Meagan Bainbridge, and I’m a shareholder in the Firm’s group. Today, I’m joined by my colleague, Nikki Mahmoudi, and we’re talking about what are important considerations for employers when deciding what to pay an employee.
In California, deciding an employee’s pay requires careful consideration of various factors, including the legal requirements and, of course, business needs and best practices. First, employer should determine their business needs and decide who it is that they need to hire and come up with a job description consistent with those needs. Employer should then review the job description developed for the position and correctly classify the employee as exempt or non-exempt. If you’re not sure what that is, in our archives, there’s many podcasts and video resources talking about what the difference is between an exempt and a non-exempt employee is. If it is an exempt position, employer should then ensure that the position meets the exempt salary requirements. If non-exempt, then employer should require, at a minimum, that that position meets the state’s minimum wage requirements.
Nikki:
Once the pay is determined, employer should ensure that they are complying with California’s Pay Transparency Laws, which, among other things, requires the following: Pay Scale Disclosures and job postings. As of January first, 2023, employers with 15 or more employees must include the pay scale, which includes either a salary or an hourly wage range. In all job postings, including remote positions that could be filled with California residents. This information must be included in the job posting itself. You can’t just include a link or a QR code that will take them to another page. You must also to provide a pay scale to current employees. Employers are required to provide current employees with a pay scale for any position upon request. Finally, there’s a prohibition against salary history inquiries. It’s illegal to ask a job applicant about their salary history in determining whether to make an offer to an applicant and what that offer is. Employers may inquire as to a particular applicant’s salary expectations. It just can’t be linked with the previous pay. Nikki, what else should employers consider when setting an employee’s pay?
Meagan:
Let’s talk a little bit about fair pay. Under Labor Code Section 1197. 5, which can apply to public and private employers, an employer will not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, another race, or ethnicity for substantially similar work when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions. Except where the employer demonstrates the wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors which we’re going to talk about, which must be applied reasonably. Different factors that we’re going to discuss must account for the entire wage differential. Those include a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, a bonafide factor other than sex, race, or ethnicity, such as education, training, or experience. Now, this bonafide factor only applies if the employer demonstrates that it’s not based on or derived from a sex, race, or ethnicity-based differential in compensation, is job-related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. When we’re talking about business necessities, it’s defined as an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor applied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve.
Nikki:
Now, the bonafide defense does not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential. A few things to keep in mind. An employee’s prior salary cannot justify a disparity in compensation. That doesn’t mean an employer cannot make a compensation decision based on a current employee’s salary. It just means that an employee can do so, so long as any wage differential resulting from that compensation decision is justified by one or more of the factors we discussed. Now, keep in mind with Labor Code Section 1197. 5, it requires employers to maintain records of wages and wage rates, job classifications, and other terms of conditions of employment for a period of three years. Typically, though, our recommendation is to maintain records for at least four years to comply with other labor code obligations. Also, employers cannot discharge or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee by reason any action they take to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of labor code Section 1197. 5. Employers also cannot prohibit employee from disclosing their own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee’s wages or aiding or encouraging other employees to exercise their rights under that labor code section.
At the same time, there’s no obligation that employees have to disclose their wages. So as an employer, you want to make sure you have policies in place enforcing this, and you also want to make sure that managers and supervisors are properly trained. Megan, is there anything else employers should keep in mind?
Meagan:
Yeah, similar to what you were just saying, just a couple expansions on that. First, I just want to remind everyone that the Fair Employment and Housing Act, FHA, does prohibit discrimination of applicants and employees based on employers with five or more employees, at least, based on any protected category. That would include race, religion, gender, that thing. This includes paying employees differently based on a protected category. So unlike the Fair Pay Act, FHA requires the employee to prove a discriminatory intent. That said, it’s important to be able to substantiate any differences in pay for an employee performing the same job as another employee. If you don’t have one, the assumption will be that it was done for a discriminatory reason. Second, similar to what you just said under the Fair Pay Act, Nikki, employers cannot limit employees’ discussion their wages and workplace environment with other employees. California law, as well as the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRA, protects employees and allows them to discuss their wages and their working conditions with other employees. So policies that require employees to keep their wages confidential are unenforceable and likely in violation of several laws on their face.
Nikki, any last thoughts for employers who are studying their employees’ pay?
Nikki:
Yeah, a few more things. It’s always good to perform a pay audit every so often to identify any potentially material and/or sex, race, or ethnicity-based pay differences within the workforce. Employers will want to make sure to review the type of work performed rather than just the specific job title. Also, employers will want to make sure to have policies in place prohibiting any pay discrimination. For those individuals involved in the making of compensation decisions, you’ll want to provide training to make sure your employees understand what factors are permissible in setting wages and salaries.
Meagan:
Thanks, Nikki. That’s it for now. You can continue to find our video series and podcast through theleblog. Com or on Weintraub Tobin’s YouTube channel or on your favorite podcast channel. Thank you everyone for joining us, and we look forward to reconnecting with you on the next edition of California Employment News. We’ll see you next time.