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.
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)
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/)
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)
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/)
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/)
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:
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:
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:
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:
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…
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…
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…
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…
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:
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:
4. What to Watch Out For
While bracketing can be useful, it carries risks if not handled carefully:
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:
Final Thought
Bracketing can be a powerful settlement tool when it’s used strategically. The key is preparation:
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.