State Agencies & Government Resources

California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR): Oversees wage, hour, safety, and compensation standards.  [Website](https://www.dir.ca.gov/)

Labor Commissioner’s Office (DLSE): Enforces wage and working condition laws.  [Website](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/)

California Civil Rights Department (CRD): Handles discrimination, harassment, and retaliation protections.  [Website](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/)

California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA): Coordinates DIR, EDD, Cal/OSHA.  [Website](https://www.labor.ca.gov/)

Agricultural Community-Based Organizations: Farmworker support groups listed by DIR.  [Website](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Agriculture-Community-Based-Organization-List.htm)

USA.gov Worker Protection Overview: Federal portal for workplace laws.  [Website](https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws)

Legal Aid & Advocacy Organizations

California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA): Supports low-income and farmworkers.  [Website](https://www.crla.org/)

Legal Aid at Work: Employment law clinics and helplines.  [Website](https://legalaidatwork.org/)

Bet Tzedek Legal Services: Wage theft and unsafe conditions support.  [Website](https://www.bettzedek.org/)

Employee Rights Center (San Diego): Local legal aid for disadvantaged workers.  [Website](https://weberc.net/)

Equal Rights Advocates: Gender justice, fair pay, harassment.  [Website](https://www.equalrights.org/)

Worksafe: Focus on workplace health and safety.  [Website](https://worksafe.org/)

Community-Based Worker Centers

Los Angeles Worker Center Network (LAWCN): Coalition of immigrant worker centers.  [Website](https://laworkercenternetwork.org/)

La Raza Centro Legal: Workers’ Rights Program in San Francisco.  [Website](https://www.lrcl.org/workers-rights)

Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance (KIWA): Immigrant labor advocacy in LA.  [Website](https://kiwa.org/)

Warehouse Workers United: Warehouse advocacy in Inland Empire.  [Website](https://warehouseworkers.org/)

Los Angeles Black Worker Center (LABWC): Black worker equity and union access.  [Website](https://lablackworkercenter.org/)

Bay Area Worker Centers: Includes La Colectiva, Filipino Advocates, etc.  [Website](https://calaborlab.ucsf.edu/tackling-workplace-challenges-resources-bay-area-workers)

Civil Rights & Identity-Based Advocacy

Asian Law Caucus: Free legal counseling for immigrant workers.  [Website](https://www.advancingjustice-alc.org/)

Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Southern California: Legal aid and advocacy for API communities.  [Website](https://www.ajsocal.org/)

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates: LGBTQ workplace equality.  [Website](https://outandequal.org/)

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE): Environmental justice and worker rights.  [Website](https://crpe-ej.org/)

Farmworker-Specific Organizations

United Farm Workers (UFW) Foundation: Farmworker legal and community support.  [Website](https://ufwfoundation.org/)

California Farmworker Foundation (CFF): Education and scholarships for farmworkers.  [Website](https://californiafarmworkers.org/)

Worker Advocacy Networks & Coalitions

California Coalition for Worker Power (CCWP): Coalition of worker centers and unions.  [Website](https://www.californiaworkerpower.org/)

National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON): Day laborer rights organizing.  [Website](https://ndlon.org/)

California Strategic Enforcement Partnership: Collaboration to fight wage theft.  [Website](https://s27147.pcdn.co/app/uploads/2018/11/CA-Enforcement-Document-Letter-11-27-18-1.pdf)AFL-CIO California Constituency Groups: Labor advocacy for retirees, LGBTQ, youth.  [Website](https://calaborfed.org/constituency-groups-allied-organizations-and-part

The recent California Court of Appeal decision in Allison v. Dignity Health (June 24, 2025), involving claims over meal and rest breaks, is a reminder that class certification in wage and hour cases is not the end of the story. Even after a class is certified, it can still be decertified if evidence shows that individual issues outweigh common ones. Here are five lessons California employers should take from this important case.

1. Class Certification Is Not Set in Stone

In Allison, two registered nurses sued Dignity Health alleging missed meal and rest breaks, unpaid work time, and related claims. The trial court initially certified the class based largely on time records and a survey showing a high rate of meal-period noncompliance.

But after 19 months of discovery, the employer successfully moved to decertify the class. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decertification, showing that certification can be revisited—and reversed—if new evidence reveals that common proof won’t work for the whole group.

2. Post-Certification Discovery Can Change the Case

What led to decertification? Discovery revealed significant variations in employee experiences:

• Some nurses voluntarily skipped or shortened breaks.
• Timesheet entries were inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate.
• Many employees testified that they were able to take compliant breaks.

These differences meant that the court would have to assess individual reasons for missed breaks—making a class action unmanageable. Employers should understand that thorough discovery can uncover facts that undermine the “commonality” element required for class claims.

3. Time Records Alone Are Not Enough

The plaintiffs relied heavily on time records and an expert survey to prove widespread violations. The Court of Appeal emphasized that these data sources were not conclusive:

• Time entries can reflect voluntary choices rather than employer-caused violations.
• Statistical surveys can be challenged for accuracy, methodology, and reliability.

The Court explained: “In Donohue, the Supreme Court held that a rebuttable presumption of liability arises when an employer’s time records show employees suffered noncompliant meal periods…. [But] it does not result in ‘automatic liability’ for employers.”

4. Employee Declarations Can Make or Break the Case

The court emphasized that testimony from employees themselves could rebut the presumption of liability. As the opinion explained:

“None of plaintiffs’ authorities bar the use of anecdotal testimony to rebut the presumption of liability….Pointing to class members’ conflicting deposition testimony, Dignity argued ‘class member testimony show[ed] wide variation of relevant experiences’ regarding meal period compliance and premium requests. For example, one RN testified that she ‘sometimes chose not to request premiums’; another testified he may have clocked in early from lunch on occasion because he ‘lost track of time’; and another RN stated she did not take a meal period on days when she wanted to go home sooner. In sum, Dignity argued ‘[n]early all of [the deponents] agreed their records were not entirely reliable indicators of when breaks were missed, late, or short because they sometimes chose to skip, shorten, or delay a meal period, or because they simply made mistakes.’”

5. The Decision Affirms Employer’s Defenses to Class Certification and Offers Guidance for PAGA Cases

The Allison decision confirms that employers can—and should—seek decertification when discovery shows that individual issues predominate. This is particularly relevant in:

• Industries with variable work patterns (healthcare, hospitality, retail, etc.),
• Cases relying heavily on time records without context,
• Situations where employee choice plays a role in break practices.

While Allison itself was not a PAGA case, its reasoning also provides a roadmap for employers facing PAGA claims, since courts are increasingly scrutinizing manageability when individualized issues predominate.  By proactively documenting break compliance, training supervisors, and preserving favorable employee testimony, employers can create the evidence needed to challenge certification.

Final Thoughts

Allison v. Dignity Health is a timely reminder that wage and hour class actions cannot simply be determined based on a review of time records.  Courts will look closely at whether the plaintiff’s theory can truly be proven with common evidence—or if individual differences make a class unmanageable.

For California employers, the takeaway is clear: invest in compliance now, ensure accurate employment policies, train supervisors on wage and hour compliance, and don’t hesitate to revisit class certification if the facts support it. Allison also underscores the value of conducting robust discovery and developing evidence that highlights employee choice and variation — tools that can be decisive in defeating class certification.

The post Lessons for California Employers from the Allison v. Dignity Health Class Action Decertification appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

I’m still haunted by the call that started my morning early yesterday. A new client needed help with the termination of an executive, immediately. Now, my spidey senses perk up whenever a client calls with a same-day termination, and I generally try to slow down the process to ensure a proper vetting process. So that’s exactly what I did.

After reviewing the offer letter and hopping on a call, I discovered we were dealing with a badly-behaved executive employee who had been hired less than a month prior. The offer letter stated it was “at-will” but provided a three-year guaranteed salary and severance. While the severance was reduced to six months in a termination “for cause,” that remained undefined in the offer letter. Even with a standard definition of “cause,” I wasn’t convinced the facts would support that argument. That wasn’t the only problem with the letter, but certainly the most costly. A sticky, and expensive, situation.

So, dear readers, a few gentle reminders for your offer letters:

1. If you are promising severance, clearly condition it on a signed release agreement;
2. Define any exceptions “for cause” as well as any notice or cure provisions;
3. State any conditions of employment, such as signing the company’s confidentiality and arbitration agreements;
4. Confirm work location so you can properly register the employee with the EDD or applicable state agency and advise the employee if onsite work or travel are essential functions of their job;
5. State employee’s status as an exempt or non-exempt employee for overtime eligibility purposes;
6. Ensure your choice of law is enforceable–this may vary by jurisdiction.

When in doubt, or when working with non-standard provisions, have counsel review the offer. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention…

Madison Mavis is the Director of Sustainability and Partnerships for NuSource, where she forms partnerships with fashion brands and nonprofits to divert excess inventory or donations from waste streams. She is an active member of the Act on Fashion coalition, advocating for the swift passage of the New York Fashion Act. Labor 411 Editor, Sahid…

Source

The Republican Party likes to boast that it is a friend of workers, even though no sane person would believe that based on the party’s history. The latest bill by the GOP in Ohio is another assault on workers in favor employers. NBC4i reports: “Some Ohio legislators are trying to make it more difficult to…

Source

Trump’s war on the [checks notes] monthly job reports is getting worse with a new statement from his nominee. CBS News reports: “President Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics is suggesting that the agency suspend its monthly jobs report, an economic staple that is relied upon by the Federal Reserve and U.S. businesses…

Source

The GOP repeal of paid sick leave measure begins August 28, just a few months after the voter-approved law took effect in May. The Guardian reports: “Being sick is a costly business for Bill Thompson, who worked in the fast-food industry in Independence, Missouri, for more than 30 years, and recently worked at Guitar Center until…

Source

Mediation is all about finding common ground. As I discussed in my prior article, Mediation in Litigation: Five Key Tips for Success, employers can approach mediation far more effectively when they understand not only what mediation is, but also the tools that may be used during the process. One of the most common — and often misunderstood — tools is called bracketing. This week’s Friday’s Five covers what bracketing is, why it’s used, and five key points for negotiating effectively with it.

1. What Bracketing Is (and Why It Matters)

Bracketing is when one party proposes a range of settlement numbers rather than a single offer.

Example: Instead of saying:

“We’ll offer $75,000,”

A party might say:

“We’ll move to a bracket of $50,000 to $150,000.”

The range itself is important, but often the midpoint is what the other side focuses on. For example, if you propose a bracket of $100,000–$200,000, the midpoint ($150,000) might be interpreted as the settlement zone you are signaling—whether you mean to send that message or not.

Bracketing can change the tone of the negotiation. Instead of fighting over whether the next offer should be $90,000 or $95,000, a bracket reframes the discussion to “are we negotiating in this general range?” That shift can open the door to resolution.

2. Why Mediators Use Bracketing

Mediators often suggest bracketing when the parties are far apart and traditional back-and-forth offers aren’t making progress. Common reasons include:

• Signaling flexibility without commitment: Bracketing lets a party suggest a broader settlement zone without moving all the way to a specific number.
• Resetting unrealistic expectations: If one side is anchored to an extreme number, a bracket can re-center the conversation toward a more reasonable range.
• Testing the waters: Sometimes a mediator uses brackets to see if there’s overlap between what the parties might accept without forcing either side to commit yet.

By shifting from fixed offers to a flexible range, mediators can reduce tension and focus the discussion on zones of potential agreement rather than positional bargaining.

3. Strategies for Using Bracketing Effectively

If you decide to bracket, you need a plan. Here are some ways to use it to your advantage:

• Control the midpoint narrative: Even though mediators sometimes say “don’t read too much into the midpoint,” experienced negotiators know that’s often exactly what the other side will do. Offer ranges that have a midpoint you can live with.
  • Example: If you want to settle around $125,000, offering a bracket of $100,000–$150,000 can steer discussions toward that zone.
• Use bracketing to reset expectations: If negotiations are stuck in small moves, proposing a range can disrupt the “inch-by-inch” stalemate and invite more meaningful movement.
• Make it conditional: To avoid giving away too much, you can make your bracket contingent on the other side offering their own bracket.
  • Example: “We’ll bracket at $80,000–$120,000 if you’ll come in at $100,000–$140,000.”
• Communicate clearly with the mediator: Make sure they understand whether your bracket is a firm settlement zone or simply a testing range. Without clear communication, the mediator may present your bracket with more flexibility—or more rigidity—than you intend.

4. What to Watch Out For

While bracketing can be useful, it carries risks if not handled carefully:

• Revealing your bottom line: If your bracket’s midpoint is close to your true walk-away number, you may tip your hand too early.
• Perception of weakness: Offering a range that makes large concessions can signal desperation and invite the other side to push for even more.
• Misinterpretation: Without clear framing, your bracket could be taken as your actual settlement zone, even if it was meant as a discussion tool.

Think ahead: if the midpoint becomes the focal point, are you prepared to defend or move from it?

5. When to Decline to Bracket

You’re never required to use bracketing just because a mediator suggests it. Situations where you might decline include:

1. You’re near your last, best, and final offer. Bracketing could pressure you into revealing a range you’re not comfortable with.
2. The facts or liability issues are still unsettled. If there’s a major dispute over legal or factual issues, negotiating numbers through a bracket may be premature.
3. The other side is fishing for your number. If they won’t reciprocate with their own bracket, you may be giving away strategic information for free.
4. The midpoint doesn’t work for you. If the mediator is pushing a midpoint that’s outside your acceptable range, it’s okay to walk away from the bracket discussion.

Final Thought

Bracketing can be a powerful settlement tool when it’s used strategically. The key is preparation:

• Know your real settlement range before you start.
• Work closely with your attorney to frame brackets that advance your position.
• Understand that the midpoint will often be interpreted as your target—so choose carefully.

And remember: just because bracketing is offered doesn’t mean you have to use it. Only bracket when it serves your negotiation goals.

The post Understanding Bracketing in Mediation appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

A major strike is underway at Boeing plants in the Midwest. NBC News reports: “Several thousand workers at three Midwest manufacturing plants where Boeing develops military aircraft and weapons went on strike early Monday, potentially complicating the aerospace company’s progress in regaining its financial footing. The strike started at Boeing facilities in St. Louis; St. Charles, Missouri;…

Source

Some California cities have raised their local minimum wage above the state rate of $16.50. In this episode of California Employment News, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Nikki Mahmoudi and Chris Horsley cover key updates in cities like San Francisco, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Alameda.

Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.

Show Notes:

Nikki: Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this installment of the California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor Employment Group here at Weintraub Tobin. My name is Nikki Mahmoudi, and I’m an associate in the Firm’s Labor and Employment Group. And today, I’m joined by my colleague, Chris Horsley.

Today, we’re going to be providing a quick minimum wage update at the local level. So, we’re midway through the year a little bit more than that. And so at this point, California has not updated their minimum wage for 2026. We’re just providing an update on some local jurisdictions that have.

So, starting July first, 2025, some local jurisdictions in California have increased their minimum wage beyond the state’s required rate of $16. 50. Now, note, when a jurisdiction has a minimum wage and it’s higher than the state minimum wage, we want to go with that number. Another consideration to keep in mind is that there’s also specific minimum wage rates for certain workers. That includes certain fast food workers and certain health care workers. We’ve actually previously done CENs about those minimum wage increases, and we’ll make sure to leave those CN links for you in the description box.

Keeping that in mind, Chris, can you give me an idea of some of the general minimum wage increases we’ve seen at the local level?

Chris: Of course. I can give you a few examples in Northern California. As of July first, 2025, both San Francisco and Berkeley have increased their minimum wage to $19.18 per hour. Then in Emreville, we have among the highest minimum wage in the state of California with a minimum wage of around $19.90 per hour. Finally, we have Alameda, who has recently increased their minimum wage from $17 to $17.46 per hour. Remember, if any of these numbers are higher than the state minimum wage, we want to go with that number instead. That’s it for now.

You can continue to find our video series through thelelawblog.com or on the Weintraub Tobin YouTube channel.

Thank you everyone for joining us, and we look forward to reconnecting with you in the next edition of California Employment News.