Photo of Mark Kemple

Mark D. Kemple is Co-Chair of the firm’s Labor & Employment Class and Collective Action practice and leads the Southern California Labor & Employment Practice. He has broad trial experience in many areas of the law, including employment class and individual litigation, consumer class litigation, false advertising, and unfair competition, where he focuses on the defense of wage/hour class actions and individual employment claims. Mark has handled disputes for companies of all sizes, and has tried numerous lawsuits and arbitrations throughout the United States. He has argued appeals in three federal circuits and several state courts of appeal, including in the California Supreme Court.

On Friday, August 28, 2020, Governor Newsom unveiled the state’s new tiered system for identifying and reducing COVID-19 infection risks in each county. This new “blueprint” is aimed at reducing instances of COVID-19 by imposing revised criteria for both easing and tightening restrictions on the activities of California residents and businesses.

Under the new system, which goes into effect on Monday, August 31st and replaces the “County Monitoring List” approach, each county is assigned to one of four tiers – Minimal, Moderate, Substantial, or Widespread. These tiers are assigned based on the percentage of new daily cases and the percentages of positive tests.
Continue Reading California Revamps its Reopening Criteria for Businesses and Activities

On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, in which it considered the applicability of the de minimis doctrine to claims
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds California Statutes and Wage Orders do not Incorporate FLSA De Minimis Doctrine; Declines to Decide Whether De Minimis Principle May Ever Apply to Wage and Hour Claims

On April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the fee shifting provisions of California Labor Code sections 128.5 and 1194 do not apply to claims for wages made pursuant California Labor Code section 226.7 for failure to authorize meal and/or rest periods. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., ____ Cal. 4th ___ (2012).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court’s Kirby Decision: If Money Talks, is This Another Post-Brinker Blow to Meal and Rest Period Claims?