(Question of Fact Existed Relative to Whether Homeowner’s Policy Reinstated Without Lapse So as to Cover Fire Loss)

In a recent mandamus opinion, the Texas Supreme Court resolved a split in opinion among the Texas Courts of Appeals as to when a corporate representative deposition of an uninsured motorist (UIM) insurance carrier is appropriate. Previously, the Corpus Christi and San Antonio Courts of Appeals permitted such depositions, but both Houston Courts of Appeals held them impermissible.

In an unfortunate and costly shift for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled last week that meal and rest period premiums must be paid at employees’ regular rate of pay, rather than employees’ straight hourly wage. The California Labor Code already made explicitly clear that calculation of employees’ overtime wages must be at employees’ regular rate of pay. Unlike a straight hourly wage, the regular rate of pay includes all remunerations employees received during the applicable pay period, including non-discretionary incentive compensation and bonuses, shift differentials, commissions, mandatory service charges, meals provided to employees, and the like.

In reaction to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided its own informal guidelines outlining workplace protections for LGBTQ employees and job applicants.