by Andy Chen | Mar 11, 2017 | California, Law, in real life
Most everyone knows that there is a difference between a gross paycheck and a net paycheck. If you’re not, a gross paycheck is the product of the number of hours you work and your gross pay (e.g. $25/hour, etc). From your gross paycheck, things like federal taxes, state taxes, retirement plan contributions, and other deductions are taken out to give you the net paycheck you actually take home to spend, er, I mean, save prudently. However, are all kinds of deductions allowed from a California employee’s paycheck? That’s the topic of this post. In California, the applicable law for deductions from an employee’s paycheck is California Labor Code section 224, which authorizes four broad categories of permissible deductions: Deductions authorized by state or federal law. Child and spousal support would be in this category; Deductions expressly authorized by the employee in writing for insurance, health or medical dues; Deductions to cover health and welfare or pension plan contributions expressly authorized by a collective bargaining or wage agreement; Deductions not amounting to a rebate or reduction from the standard wage arrived at by collective bargaining, agreement, or statute. As with everything in the law, however, exceptions exist. One exception is that an employer is allowed to deduct from an employee’s paycheck for the reasonable cost of board, lodging, or other facilities furnished to the employee in addition to their wages. 29 Code of Federal Regulations 516.27. What is more common in my experience — which is, again, by no means exhaustive — is for an employer to try and deduct for things that don’t qualify under any of the four...
by Andy Chen | Mar 9, 2017 | California, Law School Help, Law, in real life, Torts
A “tort” is, generally speaking, something that would allow a victim to sue the offender for money. This is different, obviously, from a “crime” in which the relief sought is not money, but rather incarceration. Incarceration can refer to many different things — community service, probation, etc — and not just time served in jail or prison. One of the first torts I learned about in law school was battery followed very quickly by assault. If your law school experience was like mine, then you learned that a civil battery is a “harmful or offensive touching”. A touching could, in theory, be any sort of contact the defendant makes with the plaintiff’s person or something connected to the plaintiff (e.g. something the plaintiff is holding in his hand). A typical defense to a battery cause of action might be the Crowded World Doctrine, for example. The Crowded World Doctrine basically says that the world is full of people so some amount of physical contact — imagine riding a crowded subway train — with other people is an inevitable part of daily life. This definition, however, is theoretical and terribly useful in the real world if you have actually been involved in a civil battery. A more useful definition would be one that, for instance, lists out the various criteria for civil battery. If you fulfill the listed criteria, then you as a plaintiff have made a case for civil battery. Whether you prevail, of course, depends on what defenses the defendant can raise and prove. In California, the elements of a cause of action for civil battery are as...
