Viva Italia!

Lovelies,

It's been almost a month since these photos were taken in Florence! After being back for a while, looking at these photos makes me wistful. The lazy days spent by the pool and strolling around the city with my friend Michael sound like heaven, especially with school starting in less than a month... 0.O By the time we got to Florence, I was exhausted and began to lose appreciation for some of the museums we visited (I refer to this point as the 'wall', since my brain can't seem to absorb ANY information beyond this point without sleeping for at least two days straight). However, just being in Italy and experiencing the culture was enjoyable in itself. Plus, one of my favorite foods is pasta...sooo....everything worked out nicely. ;)

One of the most shocking things I saw on the trip was the amount of knockoff designer 'shops' scattered among the streets, squares and museums. According to one of my guides, these vendors are technically illegal because they lack a 'merchant permit' that allows them to sell their goods. Personally, I think knockoffs are a poor alternative to the designer purses, as the quality and craftsmanship simply does not touch the real thing.

As for my outfit, I'm wearing a Forever 21 blouse, Zara Shorts, J. Crew Hat and pin, Franco Sarto sandals and my Dooney. I absolutely LOVE this pair of Zara shorts, as the material stands apart from anything in my closet. Plus, the blue is so striking; it's become a great accent piece in my closet.


XOXO,

Em

Mystique

Lovelies,

Like my Venetian mask? ;) I was so excited to finally purchase one of these delicate, beautiful handmade....handicrafts (If you get my Napoleon Dynamite reference, you're officially my favorite person ever). These masks are considered to be a speciality in Venice, apart from the oh-so famous Murano glass, made on the island of Murano (just off the coast of Venice). During my visit, I had a chance to peer inside a craftsman's studio, located on a quiet alleyway in the city. These shops can be difficult to locate among the bunch of street vendors who sell masks made in China. (That must really disappointing to get home and realize your 'Venetian Mask' is actually Chinese...) The shops, although messy, contain hundreds of masks. I settled on a gold and creme mask with pearl and lace detailing (see above). Although I have no idea when I will be wearing it, it's something that will remind me of Venice for the rest of my life. 


I really don't need to delve into detail about these photos, as I originally took them just for artistic purposes, not for my blog. Just appreciate the beauty; It's too picturesque. :)



XOXO,


Em

Court of Appeal: Administrative Exemption After Harris

Harris v. Superior Court (discussed here and article here) is the California Supreme Court's recent interpretation of the administrative exemption.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, saying the court of appeal mis-applied the law.  Of note, the court insisted that the court of appeal apply the relevant standards in the wage order, which includes reliance on certain federal Department of Labor Regulations.  The court sent the case back down for the court of appeal's re-consideration.

The court of appeal has issued its new decision . Again, it decided that the claims adjusters at issue in the case are non-exempt under the administrative test.  In fact, the court again granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication, which means that the court believes the claims adjusters are non-exempt as a matter of law.  Therefore, there will be no trial over whether the class of claims adjusters are exempt or not. The only dispute is over damages and penalties. If allowed to stand or remain published, it appears the court of appeal's decision limits the administrative exemption.

The Supreme Court's decision rejected the court of appeal's analysis of the exemption because the court relied on the "administrative / production dichotomy" to the apparent exclusion of the Wage Order's tests for the exemption. This time the court of appeal mostly avoided the dichotomy and focused on a different method of analyzing the exemption:

Federal Regulations former part 541.205 (2000) is one of the regulations incorporated in Wage Order 4-2001, subdivision 1(A)(2)(f). That regulation defined the italicized phrase above. It is this directly related‘ phrase that distinguishes between 'administrative operations‘ and production‘ or sales‘ work. (Fed. Regs. § 541.205(a) (2000).) 

Parsing the language of the regulation reveals that work qualifies as 'administrative‘ when it is directly related‘ to management policies or general business operations. Work qualifies as directly related‘ if it satisfies two components. First, it must be qualitatively administrative. Second, quantitatively, it must be of substantial importance to the management or operations of the business. Both components must be satisfied before work can be considered directly related‘ to management policies or general business operations in order to meet the test of the exemption. (Fed. Regs. § 541.205(a) (2000).)  

The regulation goes on to further explicate both components. Federal Regulations former part 541.205(b) (2000) discusses the qualitative requirement that the work must be administrative in nature. It explains that administrative operations include work done by ‗white collar‘ employees engaged in servicing a business. Such servicing may include, as potentially relevant here, advising management, planning, negotiating, and representing the company. Federal Regulations former part 541.205(c) (2000) relates to the quantitative component that tests whether work is of ‗substantial importance‘ to management policy or general business operations. (Harris, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 177–182 & fns. 3, 5, fns. 2, 4 & 6 omitted.)  

Only the qualitative component of the ―directly related‖ requirement is at issue in this case. (Harris, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 182.)

So, the Court set about analyzing what it means to be "directly related to management policies or general business operations."  In doing so, the court appeared to conflate the qualitative and quantitative standard.  The court reasoned that every job is in some way "directly related to management policies," which cannot mean that everyone is exempt.  The court explained that even the lowest level employees may "advise" management (about mundane things), and may "represent the company" when calling a cab.  The court reasoned that the exemption would include everyone if that were the case, seeming to ignore the "quantitative" test of "importance."

So, the court sought to draw a line and readily concluded:

The undisputed facts show that Adjusters are primarily engaged in work that fails to satisfy the qualitative component of the "directly related" requirement because their primary duties are the day-to-day tasks involved in adjusting individual claims. They investigate and estimate claims, make coverage determinations, set reserves, negotiate settlements, make settlement recommendations for claims beyond their settlement authority, identify potential fraud, and the like.

 * * *

The claims adjusters were responsible for determining coverage, setting and updating reserves, determining liability, evaluating a claim for settlement, and negotiating settlement of claims,‖ as well as recognizing potential subrogation on claims and forwarding such claims to the Subrogation Unit‖ and recognizing indicators of potential fraud on claims and forwarding such claims to the Special Investigations Unit.‖ The settlement authority of the adjusters under the declarant‘s supervision ranged from $6,000 to $40,000, and their expense authority ranged from $5,000 to $20,000. The declarant estimated that 85 percent of the adjusters‘ claims were settled within their settlement authority; for claims exceeding their authority, he ―generally expect[ed] them to provide [him] with a recommendation of settlement as well as a thorough analysis of their reasoning.‖ Other declarations described other adjusters who had lower or higher settlement authority (some as high as $100,000), but all of them performed similar duties.

None of that work, or the similar work of the other class members, is carried on at the level of management policy or general operations. Rather, it is all part of the day-to-day operation of Employers‘ business.

Here's how you know the court of appeal seems to have conflated the qualitative and quantitative components of the exemption:

For example, if a Golden Eagle underwriter consults with a Golden Eagle claims examiner regarding whether the company should issue certain types of policies to a particular customer, the claims examiner is not giving advice about management policies or general operations. But if Golden Eagle‘s underwriters consult with Golden Eagle‘s claims examiners regarding whether the company should offer certain types of policies in general (namely, whether such policies should be included in Golden Eagle‘s line of products), the claims examiners are giving advice about management policies or general operations.

So, that means if you are not formulating or implementing policies on a company wide basis, you're non-exempt?  The exemption does not say you have to formulate the policies. Whether you issue a certain policy to a particular customer is the application of a business policy. That is "administrative" work.  Similarly, if an employee relations manager evaluates the employee handbook policies and decides whether a management decision to discharge is wise, that is exempt work - advising management.  If you take the court of appeal's analysis to the next step, only the HR manager responsible for drafting the handbook is exempt; everyone else just applies it to the individual worker and is non-exempt?  Everyone in the accounting department is non-exempt except the CFO or those who manage 2 or more people? That will be news to thousands of employers, (and plaintiff lawyers.)

There's more here, but you get the picture.

Dear court of appeal, with respect, I think you got this one wrong. I hope the California Supreme Court decides to re-review this one or depublish it.

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

Court of Appeal Upholds Arbitration Agreement

Nelsen v. Legacy Partners (opinion here) is the latest decision from the court of appeal to address the validity of arbitration agreements in California, after recent federal developments (Concepcion, DR Horton, etc.). 

The issues, as usual, are whether the arbitration agreement is "unconscionable," or violates public policy, and therefore is unenforceable as a contract.

The arbitration agreement was located at the end of a long handbook. Not surprisingly, the court first found that the agreement was "procedurally unconscionable,"  because

It was part of a preprinted form agreement drafted by LPI that all of LPI‘s California property managers were required to sign on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The arbitration clause was located on the last two pages of a 43-page handbook. While the top of page 42 contains a highlighted prominent title ―TEAM MEMBER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT,‖ the title makes no reference to arbitration and the arbitration language itself appears in a small font not set off in any way to stand out from the rest of the agreement or handbook. Moreover, unless Nelsen happened to be conversant with the rules of pleading in the Code of Civil Procedure, the law and procedure applicable to appellate review, and the rules for the disqualification of superior court judges, the terms and rules of the arbitration referenced in the clause would have been beyond her comprehension.

So, now the courts say that failing to attach the Code of Civil Procedure makes an agreement procedurally unconscionable.  What happened to "everyone is bound to know the law?" or "ignorance is no excuse?"  Also, by saying that the agreement is not in a different font, the court is imposing a requirement that does not apply to other contracts.  That's not supposed to be allowed, demonstrating once again that the unconscionability doctrine is just an end run around Federal Arbitration Act preemption.

However, the court then turned to "substantive" unconscionability, which must also exist for an arbitration agreement to be invalidated.  In this case, though, the arbitration agreement was pretty much lifted verbatim from a California Supreme Court decision. (Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064.)  So, the Court did not find substantive unconscionability.

But Nelsen then argued that, regardless of unconcsionability, the arbitration agreement violated "public policy" under the California Supreme Court's decision in  Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443.  In particular, Nelsen argued that the arbitration agreement barred her from bringing a class claim in arbitration because the agreement was silent as to class claims.

The court of appeal held that, indeed, the silent agreement did not encompass class-based claims.
However, the court then decided that Gentry did not invalidate the arbitration agreement because Nelsen did not adequately support the argument to the trial court.  That is, Gentry does not invalidate "all" class action waivers, so you have to establish the Gentry "factors," which Nelsen did not do.  In ruling this way, the court sidestepped whether Gentry remains good law.

Finally, the court decided that the National Labor Relations Board's decision in DR Horton was not binding and that the court would not follow it. The court noted that the decision was issued by just 2 Board members and that the issue of whether class action waivers are enforceable are beyond the Board's normal expertise.

So, another arbitration agreement survives. 

Court of Appeal: Employee's Attempt to Buy Shoes for Friend with Employer's Money Not Misconduct

Here's another Court of Appeal decision regarding an unemployment insurance benefits determination by the Employment Development Department.  A few weeks ago, the Court decided that refusing to sign a document was insubordination, disqualifying an employee from benefits.  See here.  Not this time.

In this case, Robles was employed by Liquid Environmental Solutions. He received an annual allowance for safety shoes.  He took a friend to the Red Wing store to buy the friend a pair of boots with his shoe allowance.  The store clerk would not permit the purchase.  Robles did not complete the transaction.  He was later suspended and then fired.

Robles applied for unemployment benefits.  The company did not appear or contest.  Robles admitted he attempted to use the Company's shoe allowance to buy shoes for a non-employee friend.  EDD denied the claim for unemployment on the basis of misconduct, as did the superior court.  Here is what the EDD's ALJ said, which pretty much sums it up:

Robles started to explain his objection to the characterization in the investigator・s report to the effect that claimant stated he was aware ―that the purchase had to be for employees only.‖The ALJ said he would have a chance later to ―tell me more about it.

The ALJ found that Robles was discharged for misconduct connected with work. In particular, Robles understood that the employer intended that its employees use the
annual shoe allowance to purchase shoes. Robles breached ―a duty of good faith and fair dealing when he attempted to obtain shoes for a friend who was not an employee rather than using the allowance for himself. [¶] The claimant may have had good intentions toward his friend, but in his actions he breached a serious obligation he had to the employer.

But the court of appeal disagreed with the EDD and superior court.  The court of appeal apparently did not accept that an employee who knowingly attempts to use company money to buy something for a third party is stealing, or at least attempting to do so:

In the case at hand, Robles knew that the employer intended its employees to use the shoe allowance to purchase safety shoes for work, but the element of culpable intent has not been established. First, Robles did not try to hide anything when he went to the shoe store. Next, it is undisputed that he wanted to help his friend who had a recent home accident. Further, Robles had decent safety shoes and did not feel he would jeopardize the safety purpose of the allowance or otherwise injure his employer‘s interests. When his supervisor indicated the employer did not approve of the intended use, Robles registered his regret and assured the supervisor he would comply. And finally, Robles did not use the shoe allowance for his friend. At most Robles was guilty of a good faith error in judgment. At the least Robles misunderstood the limits of what he could do with the safety shoe allowance, which he was entitled to as a benefit of employment.

Well, you be the judge.  Is the court of appeal indulging bad behavior.  Do you need a written policy saying don't use company money to buy friends shoes intended for employee safety?  Is this misconduct or just a "good faith error in judgment?"  These are rhetorical questions; don't write :)

The case is Robles v. EDD and the decision is here.

Venezia

Lovelies,

Franco Sarto Sandals, Oroton Purse, ZARA shorts.

J. Crew Shirt, Henri Bendel Headband.

Henri Bendel bracelet.

To preface this post, I should not have worn these shorts in Italy. Period.  It was brutally hot the day I shot this look. Naturally, I thought wearing shorts would be an appropriate thing to do....but I was wrong. I completely forgot about the dress code Italian churches follow. You could say it was embarassing in the slightest to have an old Italian man yelling at me to "Leave ze church!" and waving his arms around while muttering some unrecognizable Italian I didn't understand. Churches- 1, Emily- 0.

Anyways, apart from that awkward situation, I loved Venice. L-O-V-E-D. I will be posting some pictures of the city itself, and go into more depth in my next post...but in short, it was easily my favorite city we visited on our trip. From an outsiders perspective, it seems touristy, gross...frankly, all around unpleasant. Stay a night or two, however, and you'll see a side of Venice you've only heard about in books and seen in movies. The city empties, leaving the streets and mysterious canals to you. It's an extremely romantic place filled with absolutely wonderful residents (There's only 60,000 people that live in the city, while it attracts 20 million people a year...thats around 55,000 people a day!!).

Some of my favorite attractions included the water taxis, the Peggy Guggenheim Museum and night strolls along the canal pathways. If you plan on visiting Venice anytime soon, I would highly recommend traveling by water taxi instead of the Vaporetto (Large boat that mimics the Subway system in New York). Although water taxis are expensive ($50 a pop), they're beautiful, classy and stylish and not crammed with people. Additionally, by request, the driver can take you through some canals and extend your time on the boat.  Gondola rides are a must, although boarding one during the day can be hot and uncomfortable. We decided to wait until nightime....it was well worth the wait. :)

I think this was one of my favorite looks I pieced together for our trip. I'm wearing a J. Crew striped tee, Zara lace shorts, Franco Sarto Sandals, Henri Bendel bracelet/headband and my Oroton purse. The severity of my underwhelming collection of purses prompted me to pick up a Longchamp 'Le Pliage' long handle tote in navy....I've been using it every single day. In short, a new purse was long overdue.

XOXO,

Em

Employment Tribunals Fees In Place 2013

The Government have announced that fees to start and hear claims before the Employment Tribunals will be in place in 2013. The nominal claims such as unlawful deductions will cost £160 to start and a further hearing will cost £230.00 whereas all other claims such as unfair dismissal will cost £260.00 to start and £950 for a hearing.

The official press release is here

The original rationale behind the fees (which was to reduce vexatious claim) has now been abandoned and instead the Government are now suggesting it is reduce the cost of the Tribunal system on the tax payer. 

If you are considering or being faced with litigation please do not hesitate to contact me on gda@cheshirelawassociates.com or 07716 346 708.

Court of Appeal: Advanced Commissions May Be Recovered

Verizon paid certain employees on commission. The commissions were paid on wireless subscriptions.  However, if customers canceled their service, Verizon would charge back the commissions that were advanced to employees under the assumption that the customer would pay for the entire subscription. Here is the court of appeal's description of the commission plan:

The compensation plans explain that commissions on the sale of cell phone service plans are paid in advance, but not earned until the expiration of a chargeback period during which the customer may cancel the service. The 2004 compensation plan stated: "Customer retention is an important element of earning any commission; therefore your commission for sales of service is not earned until after the expiration of the applicable chargeback period. However, as a benefit to employees so that they will have use of the money before it is actually earned, Verizon Wireless has a policy of advancing commission dollars, if certain requirements are met, for the sale of commission-eligible services." The 2005 compensation plan stated: "Your commission . . . is not earned and the sale does not „vest‟ until . . . your customer satisfies his [or her] contract during the applicable chargeback period."

The compensation plans include a section entitled, "Chargeback of Commission Advance." The 2004 compensation plan stated: "In the event a customer disconnects service during the commission chargeback period, your commission is subject to adjustment by the original amount advanced for the sale. Your commission advance will be adjusted to account for disconnects within the chargeback period . . . ." The 2005 compensation plan stated if a customer disconnects service during the chargeback period, "the sale is not considered vested[.]"

Deleon, a Verizon employee, brought a class action agianst Verizon, challening Verizon's right to recover advanced commissions. Deleon's point apparently is that he sold the plan to the customer. If the customer makes a return or cancels, Verizon must pay him the commission anyway and absorb the loss.  That's why there's little chance there will be a company called "Deleon Wireless" any time soon.

There is no allegation that Verizon failed to honor its plan, or that Deleon was underpaid. The entire focus was that he should be paid more, on sales that did not bear fruit.

Nice try. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeal affirmed. The courts decided that Verizon's plan was clear, Deleon had notice of it, and Verizon followed the plan correctly. The plan defined when commissions were "earned" and paid money in advance, but reconciled the advances against future earned commissions. Therefore, the courts held, Verizon's plan was lawful.

The court of appeal also made a refreshing observation.  If the plaintiff's argument prevailed, Verizon most likely would have dispensed with making advances. Employees would then have to wait up to a year to "earn" commissions when the subscriptions were fully paid. 

The case is Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, and the opinion is here.

Preparing to Compete - Gross Misconduct?

Is preparing to compete with an employer Gross Misconduct?

Not necessarily says the EAT. In their judgement in Khan v Ladsker Child Care Limited the EAT provided a healthy reminder that in order for this to be gross misconduct and therefore justifying summary dismissal, an employer must demonstrate a fundamental breach of contract such as a breach of trust and confidence.

Whether or not actions would constitute a breach of contract would need to be balanced between a restraint of trade which is unenforceable and protecting the reasonable business interests of the employer. Without going into too much detail about the judgement itself, it is a healthy reminder to have properly drafted restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses within contracts of employment.

If you wish to fully protect your business and need advice in terms of restrictive covenants, please contact us on 07716 346 708 or email me on gda@cheshirelawassociates.com

Demel

Lovelies,



Wien, pronounced "Vee-yen", is the German name for Vienna.





Watching the pastry chef.




 Accents in the cafe upstairs.



I simply could not visit Austria without showcasing a confectionary shop; That would be a crime. Beforehand, I did some research online to find a well known shop to visit whilst in Vienna. However, I soon realized I already knew the perfect store- Demel.

Back when I was around seven, my dad traveled to New York on business. He brought back a box of chocolates from their New York Boutique (once housed inside The Plaza). The chocolates, known as cat's tongues (Les langues de chat in French, or Katzenzungen in German), were gone in a flash. I kept the box (it still resides in the back of my closet!) as a reminder of how fantastic chocolate could taste. After doing a bit of additional research, I found that Demel's headquarters was located in Vienna. Needless to say, I couldn't wait.
We visited the headquarters three times in all! The food in Vienna was rather different...think, lots of schnitzel, liver pate, creamed things...it was pretty suspicious. Thankfully, the cafe at Demel housed fresh and familiar foods, such as Gazpacho, Angel Hair Pasta and Tea Sandwiches. (Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trying different foods...but after a while, I was craving Starbucks and greek salad.) The best part? All their food-even the club sandwich- was presented aesthetically. The presentation, service and atmosphere all made for a wonderful experience.

Of course, I had to get some chocolate while I was here. ;) I ordered the hot chocolate as an afternoon refresher. To be honest, no hot chocolate will ever be able to match Demel's. It's a fact.

XOXO,

Em

Court of Appeal Imposes Franchisor Liability for Franchisee Harassment Claim

A Domino's franchisee's employee claimed sexual harassment against her supervisor and her employer, the franchisee (Sui Juris).  However, she also sued franchisor Domino's Pizza.  Normally, only the "employer" can be held liable for FEHA violations.  But the victim, Patterson, claimed that Domino's was also her employer because of its control over franchisee Sui Juris. The trial court disagreed, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

The appellate court decided there at least was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the franchisor exercised sufficient control over Sui Juris' employment practices to make it an "employer."  The court did not apply "single employer" or "joint" employer standards that normally apply to these analyses.  Nor did the Court analyze franchisor liability under FEHA's text.  Rather, the Court of Appeal applied an independent contractor-type analysis applying to torts generally:

Whether a franchisor is vicariously liable for injuries to a franchisee's employee depends on the nature of the franchise relationship.  . . . ."The general rule is where a franchise agreement gives the franchisor the right to complete or substantial control over the franchisee, an agency relationship exists." . . . "'[I]t is the right to control the means and manner in which the result is achieved that is significant in determining whether a principal-agency relationship exists.'" (Ibid.) Consequently, a franchisee may be found to be an agent of the franchisor even where the franchise agreement states it is an independent contractor.  .... If the franchisor has substantial control over the local operations of the franchisee, it may potentially face liability for the actions of the franchisee's employees. 

"[T]he franchisor's interest in the reputation of its entire system allows it to exercise certain controls over the enterprise without running the risk of transforming its independent contractor franchisee into an agent."  ... Consequently, it may control its trademarks, products and the quality of its services. But the franchisor may be subject to vicarious liability where it assumes substantial control over the franchisee's local operation, its management-employee relations or employee discipline. 

Applying this rule, the Court decided there should be a trial on whether Domino's was sufficiently controlling of Sui Juris to the considered an "employer" and liable for the harassment.

Significantly, Domino's then argued it could not be liable because it had no advance knowledge there was sexual harassment at that franchise.  But the Court of Appeal ruled that the franchisor could be held strictly liable for the harassment of the franchisee's supervisor. 

Anyway, this decision opens up a significant avenue for franchisor liability when it exercises tight control over a franchisee's operations. 

It will be interesting to see if the California Supreme Court takes this one up or if Domino's seeks rehearing. The standard for liability under FEHA is usually analyzed under whether the corporate entity is an "employer."  At the same time, FEHA does impose liability on "agents" of the employer.   

The case is Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court: Certain Cities Don't Have to Pay Prevailing Wage

Many employers who do business with the government have heard of the "prevailing wage."  If you haven't, here's what it is, as explained by the California Supreme Court:

contractors on "public works" projects [have] to pay "the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the work is performed." . . . The term "public works" was defined as work done for public agencies and work paid for with public funds. ... Simply put, "[p]revailing wage laws are based on the . . . premise that government contractors should not be allowed to circumvent locally prevailing labor market conditions by importing cheap labor from other areas."

Basically, the law requires public employers to pay "prevailing" wages.  But "prevailing" usually means "pretty darn high" if you have ever seen them. They are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and state counterparts (such as the Department of Industrial Relations).

Anyway, so California's constitution authorizes "charter cities," which have broad authority to govern themselves.  State laws preempt charter cities' rules in certain circumstances.

Vista, CA, is a charter city.  Vista was implementing some public works projects, constructing buildings and such.  The project did not call for paying the "prevailing" wage and some unions sued.

Cutting to the chase, here is the 5-2 holding:

Here, we reaffirm our view — first expressed 80 years ago (see City of Pasadena v. Charleville (1932) 215 Cal. 384, 389 (Charleville)) — that the wage levels of contract workers constructing locally funded public works are a municipal affair (that is, exempt from state regulation), and that these wage levels are not a statewide concern (that is, subject to state legislative control).

How fast will someone try to pass an initiative to overturn this one?

The case is State Building and Const. Trades Council, etc. v. City of Vista and the opinion is here.

Collar

Lovelies,

Forever 21 Dress, J. Crew Belt, Henri Bendel Bracelet.

J. Crew Cardigan.

Forever 21 Collar.

Dooney and Bourke Purse, Sam Edelman Flats.

The next stop on our vacation was Vienna, Austria. I didn't know what to expect Vienna to be like, except I knew that the pastries would be scrumptious (I love that word). I was completely surprised to waltz into a city filled with absolutely spectacular buildings, gardens, and landscape very similar to Paris. Although the weather was hot and muggy, it was easy to escape by visiting the numerous art museums Vienna had to offer. These photos were taken outside the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Although the museum's grandeur was quite impressive, I have to say my favorite art museum was a tie between the Sucession Building (The museum that houses Gustav Klimt's Beethovenfries Mural), or the Belvedere, which houses Klimt's The Kiss. I wasn't necessarily a big fan of Klimt's art beforehand, but after my visit to Austria, I definitely have a more respect for his work.

My outfit was inspired by the oh-so famous 2012 Louis Vuitton S/S show, which featured a sugary sweet combination of pastels, feathers and metallics. (I previously posted some pictures of a few looks  in my window shopping post!)  Lately, I've been really infatuated with the entire collar trend, as it's incredibly impractical but extremely stylish. I bought one at Forever 21, just to join the pack and experiment with the versatility of the piece. Surprisingly, the collar has been one of the best bargains I have ever found (In case you're wondering, it was only $7. (: On the same trip, I purchased the creme dress. I bought the mint cardigan from J. Crew before I traveled to New York back in April, as well as the Sam Edelman flats. I purchased my bracelet from the flagship Henri Bendel store in NYC. I promise, if I end up going to college in the city, I'm going to find myself broke from spending too much time in 712 5th avenue. :)

XOXO,

Em

Prague

Lovelies,

Above are a few additional pictures I took whilst in Prague...below, I'll explain a little about each one. :)

The first photo was taken in the Philosophical Hall of the Strahov Monastery. Usually, tourists are not allowed inside the library unless accompanied by a guide. Fortunately, however, my dad had already booked a tour of the monastery with a guide, which allowed us access inside! Words cannot even begin to describe how breathtaking this library was...not to mention the value of it's contents. Inside, the library not only contains countless scientific texts inscribed by monks, but the only catalogue in the world that documents the Louvre's collection of pieces up to the 1800's.

The second photo was taken on Charles' Bridge. The tower served as a main entrance into Old Town, and is decorated with various crests and such (so fancy, I can't stand it). I really liked the juxtaposition of the photo, as the sky is trés bleu. TRÉS.

The third photo shows the astronomical clock located in the city square of Prague (close to the Jewish quarter that I mentioned earlier!) Our guide explained the function and design of the clock too quickly, so unfortunately, I still have absolutely NO idea how it works or how to read it. Snaps for paying attention when you have jet lag! (I do remember, however, that there was a Starbucks next to the clock.....) (: Regardless, there are none of these intricate machines in the United States, so it was really interesting to visit!

The fourth photo was the view from Charles' Bridge...there's not much to explain about the significance of this photo, so yeah...that's all I got. (:

The last photo was taken inside Saint Vitus' Cathedral, located close to the Royal Palace. The Cathedral is home to Sain Vitus, a Saint who became famous after he was pushed off the Charles' bridge for refusing to share confessions to the King.  I WANT A CHURCH NAMED AFTER ME. Seriously, that's too cool for words.

Next stop? Vienna:)

XOXO,

Em

Old Town

Lovelies,

So begins the documentation of my summer vacation to Europe!:)  I was really looking forward to this trip because I saw it as a way to expand the content of my blog; while continuing to post outfits, I want to start focusing a bit more on the things I experience while exploring a new country. Luckily, my first stop was Prague, a city who's vibrant and artistic community faced communism and World War II several decades ago. 

 We arrived at the airport after spending around 24 hours traveling to our final destination. IT. WAS. EXHAUSTING. I somehow always think I'm going to miraculously outsmart jetlag and feel happy as a clam when I get off the plane...but unfortunately, it never works out. :/ The combination of policeman riding segways all over the airport (ONLY in europe!) and the unreadable Czech signs made my brain swim just a tad. After finding our luggage, we drove into Prague's city square. The buildings, although somewhat shabby on the outside, are absolutely dazzling on the inside. (Think chandeliers, rare woods, pastel colors and gorgeous lighting.)

These photos were taking outside of the Jewish Cemetery, located just a few blocks away from the city's square, known as the Old Town Square. Prague itself is divided into five sections- Josefov (Jewish Quarter), Old Town, New Town, The Castle of Prague and Malá Strana. The Jewish Quarter is also home to the oldest Synagogue in Europe, which is rumored to hold this mythical creature known as the Golem in its attic. Mysterious? Definitely.

I really liked the atmosphere around the Jewish quarter in contrast with my choice of clothing. I bought the shirt on a Forever 21 run with my dearest girl, Elsa. To me, the construction of the sleeves and the collar seems to reference the 50's. I increased the femininity of the outfit by adding the J. Crew necklace. After a year, I finally wore it! :) I topped it all off with my vintage Dooney, Ray-Bans, Henri Bendel Bracelet and J. Crew flats that I bought in San Francisco.

The pants? They're a story in themselves. Originally, I bought a pair of ripped tomato colored jeans while I was at Forever 21 with Elsa. Just as my heart set on them, I realized the zipper was broken...but, being me, I wouldn't put them down. I told myself I could just sew some hooks and eyes on them, turning them into wearable and ridiculously fantastic pants. With the bonus 5% discount Forever 21 gave me, I felt like I was getting them for a bargain. (Insert LOADS of sarcasm here). Unfortunately, my three hours of sewing while Elsa watched Midnight in Paris didn't exactly work out so hot. The fly gapped strangely, and I felt really awkward in them. In panic mode, I flew to Gap and found these. They're not exactly what I'm looking for, but they'll look great in Winter. (You bet I'm going to find a way to make those pants work, though). (:

XOXO,

Em