Leather and Leaves

Lovelies,

J. Crew Flats, J. Crew Matchstick Cords. 

It's finally fall in my town, which means it's finally time for hot apple cider, fall leaves and.... leather shoes! I bought these beauties back in June when I was at the J. Crew in San Francisco, but haven't had the chance to wear them around that often (Heat=gross). You could say I was completely obsessed the moment I laid my eyes on them. Even though it was about 100 degrees back at home, I still couldn't think of a reason NOT to buy them. The leather is gorgeous and soft...I feel like I'm slipping my foot into slippers when I put these on. :)

Hope everyone is having a fabulous Thanksgiving Break! I'm so excited to announce that I'll have another blog adventure coming up shortly. I can't say where, but I can say it's going to be amazzingggg! :)

XOXO,

Em

California - New Wage Rates Announced for Computer Exemption

Under Labor Code Section 515.5, some computer software employees are considered exempt if they meet certain duties and compensation criteria.  The compensation rate is supposed to vary with the rate of inflation.

The California Division of Labor Statistics and Research has just adjusted the minimum pay rates for the exemption for 2012:

Old hourly rate:  $37.94
New rate:  $38.89

Old monthly salary: $6,587.50
New monthly salary: $6,752.19

Old annual salary: $79,050.00
New annual salary  $81,026.25

The DLSR's memorandum announcing the change is here.

Thanks to the Cal Chamber for pointing this out.

Greg

No Individual Liability for Supervisors Under Military Service Anti-Discrimination Law

Mario Pantuso is a member of the U.S. Navy. He served six months in Iraq and then sought return to his job at Safway Services. Denied reinstatement, he sued Safway and two former supervisors under the Military and Veterans Code for discrimination.  If you are unfamiliar with that law, here it is, as quoted by the court:

Section 394, subdivision (a) reads: “No person shall discriminate against any officer, warrant officer or enlisted member of the military or naval forces of the state or of the United States because of that membership. No member of the military forces shall be prejudiced or injured by any person, employer, or officer or agent of any corporation, company, or firm with respect to that member‟s employment, position or status or be denied or disqualified for employment by virtue of membership or service in the military forces of this state or of the United States.” (Italics added.)


Section 394, subdivision (d) reads in part: “No employer or officer or agent of any corporation, company, or firm, or other person, shall discharge any person from employment because of the performance of any ordered military duty or training or by reason of being an officer, warrant officer, or enlisted member of the military or naval forces of this state . . . .” (Italics added.)

 So, the individual managers sought to have the claims against them dismissed. The trial court refused, and they took a writ to the court of appeal. The court of appeal agreed that there is no individual liability for supervisors under the Military and Veterans Code. The court reasoned that the law is written similarly to the Fair Employment and Housing Act and has a similar purpose. Because individuals cannot be held liable for discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, the same result should obtain.  The court pointed out that some federal decisions impose liability for individuals under the federal USERRA.  But the plaintiff was proceeding under state law, and the language of USERRA is different.

Because the narrow issue was whether individuals could be held liable, there was no discussion of the merits of the lawsuit itself.

The case is Haligowski v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

DGV
 

Lovelies!

Vera Wang Lavender Flats, Nordstrom.

J. Crew Chain Resin and Metal Necklace

J. Crew Resin and Glass Bangle.

So, I miss blogging weekly. :( It's Thanksgiving Break here in a few weeks, and I'm practically jumping up and down with excitement. (Props to the pilgrims for landing at such a convenient time in the school year.) Breaks are the best because I can sit around and do nothing all day, except catch up on the obscene amount of fashion shows I put off watching for the past 3 months, while drinking about 50 cups of tea. Sounds pretty good, right?

Anyways, I went shopping yesterday down at the mall. As hard as I tried not to buy something, I failed...since I have a bad habit to blow through my allowance and work money as quick as you can say NEW SHOES. ;) However, since I'm already planning outfits for upcoming trips, and all the items I bought yesterday pieced everything together...I figured it wasn't completely sinful.

I finally got a pair of Vera flats yesterday, and already love love love them! The leather is the best, and honestly they're shiny enough that they could serve as a mirror (if necessary). The jewelry is from J. Crew's fall collection.

XOXO,

Em

Brinker (Meal Period Case) Oral Argument

I am told there are lawyers who waited hours to get a seat at the California Supreme Court's hearing on Brinker v. Superior Court.  It's called "Youtube."  Look into it.  

For those of you who would not wait in line for a courtroom hearing, the oral argument is here.

As you will see, it looks like some justices are concerned that employers should not have to force employees to take meal periods.  The court will issue its decision within 90 days.