statute codifies requirement in California

2025A bonus is paid over and above wages earned for extraordinary work performance or as an inducement to employees to remain in the employ of the employer”].) 13 Effective January 1, 2016, the Legislature adopted section 226.2, which specifically governs employees “compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay period.” (Ibid.) The statute codifies the requirement, as developed in caselaw, that employers must compensate employees at a rate no less than the applicable minimum wage, for “rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate compe

2025A bonus is paid over and above wages earned for extraordinary work performance or as an inducement to employees to remain in the employ of the employer”].) 13 Effective January 1, 2016, the Legislature adopted section 226.2, which specifically governs employees “compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay period.” (Ibid.) The statute codifies the requirement, as developed in caselaw, that employers must compensate employees at a rate no less than the applicable minimum wage, for “rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate compe

2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum

2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum

2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum

2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum

2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum

2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum

2022(See Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921-922 .) Notwithstanding the dog-bite statute, “the common law [dangerous-tendency] rule still obtains when a dog causes injury by some means other than biting.” (Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, 176 ; accord, 6 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts § 1573 (2021).) Beverly Hills Municipal Code section 5-2-111 provides, in relevant part: “Any person owning, controlling, or having care or custody of any animal shall be liable for any injury caused by such animal . . . .” Shaham has failed to show instructional error.

2022(See Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921-922 .) Notwithstanding the dog-bite statute, “the common law [dangerous-tendency] rule still obtains when a dog causes injury by some means other than biting.” (Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, 176 ; accord, 6 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts § 1573 (2021).) Beverly Hills Municipal Code section 5-2-111 provides, in relevant part: “Any person owning, controlling, or having care or custody of any animal shall be liable for any injury caused by such animal . . . .” Shaham has failed to show instructional error.