Total Articles: 10
Fisher Phillips • August 12, 2018
In his bylined piece for Corporate Compliance Insights, Irvine Partner John Skousen breaks down the new ABC test for California employers, which determines whether a worker should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 08, 2018
On January 1, 2018, California’s salary history ban (A.B. 168) took effect. Under A.B. 168, California employers are prohibited from “seek[ing] salary history information” from an applicant.1 The statute also prohibits employers from relying on an applicant’s prior salary history “as a factor in determining whether to offer employment . . . or what salary to offer an applicant.”2 In short, employers cannot ask applicants what they made at their last job, and, if the information is involuntarily disclosed, cannot rely on this information—in any way—in determining the terms of an employment offer. On July 18, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2282, the Fair Pay Act Bill, which takes effect on January 1, 2019, and clarifies the application of California’s Equal Pay Act.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 08, 2018
On July 1, 2018, the newly implemented Hotel Housekeeping Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP) regulation took effect.1 This program requires all California hotel/motel employers to institute and maintain written policies and training practices regarding housekeeping-related workplace hazards. The new Cal-OSHA regulation, which is intended to prevent and reduce work-related injuries to housekeepers in the hospitality industry, specifically requires that the MIPP be part of the employers Injury Illness and Prevention Program (IIPP) and that it be in writing, readily accessible to employees during their shift, and include the following components
Ogletree Deakins • August 06, 2018
Many California employers round employees’ clock-in and clock-out times to the closest quarter hour, tenth of an hour, or five-minute interval. This practice is commonly referred to as “rounding.” On June 25, 2018, California’s Second District Court of Appeal upheld an employer’s rounding system in AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B285655 (June 25, 2018). The decision reaffirms the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2016 ruling on the subject and expands on the criteria used to evaluate whether a rounding policy is neutral in practice, and thus lawful.
XpertHR • August 05, 2018
California law requires that employees be relieved of all duty during meal breaks. As a result, an employer typically may not require employees to remain on the premises.
California employers must track small amounts of regularly occurring work time - even as short as four to 10 additional minutes each day - and pay employees for that time, according to the California Supreme Court.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 29, 2018
California has enacted new legislation aimed at clarifying its law banning an employer from inquiring about a job applicant’s salary history information
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • July 27, 2018
Today, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Troester v. Starbucks, refusing to hold that the well-established de minimis doctrine applies under California law. The de minimis doctrine is a principle of law that has long been endorsed and applied by both federal and California state courts (as well as California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement), holding that employers need not compensate employees for insignificant amounts of time spent performing work-related tasks off the clock where such time is administratively difficult to track. Today, the state’s high court held that, although the doctrine is widely accepted under the federal FLSA, California wage orders are more protective of employees and require payment for “all hours worked.” The Court held that the de minimis doctrine cannot be used to allow an employer to avoid paying for tasks that take, on average, 4-10 minutes at the end of an employee’s shift. However, the Court stated that is was not prepared to hold that the doctrine could never be applied under California law on potentially different facts involving smaller amounts of time spent off the clock and/or only sporadically.
Fisher Phillips • July 27, 2018
Today, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, and departed from federal law’s more employer-friendly version of the de minimis rule, which it characterized as stuck in the “industrial world.” In holding that Starbucks Corporation must compensate hourly employees for off-the-clock work that occurs on a daily basis and generally takes four to ten minutes after the employee clocks out at the end of their shift, the California Justices announced they were ensuring California law was in line with the modern technologies that have altered our daily lives. De minimis means something is too minor or trivial to take into account, and the Court clarified what is trivial and what is not.
Ogletree Deakins • July 27, 2018
On July 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the state’s wage and hour rules and regulations have not adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and that the de minimis rule does not apply to a wage and hour claim brought under a state wage order. The de minimis rule permits employers to disregard “insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours” when recording an employee’s hours worked for purposes of compensation.