Total Articles: 97
The West Coast Employer (December 2012)
California Governor Signs New Employment Laws;
Minimum Salary Requirement Increases for California Computer Professional Exemption Announced;
New Nevada Law Bans Cell Phone Use While Driving;
Viability of Key Defense to Be Considered by California Supreme Court;
NLRB Workplace Posting Rule;
State Posting Rules
California Businesses Cannot Let Guard Down
A lot is going on here in the Golden State. Governor Jerry Brown was reelected to a third term (after a hiatus of almost 30 years since the end of his second term), and since that time, California employers have been on edge wondering what type of anti-business measures he would sign into law. Although several bills that businesses feared either did not pass or were vetoed, the governor has signed into law a number of measures that should give employers concern.
UPDATING EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS FOR 2012
Much of the legislation passed in 2011 goes into effect on January 1, 2012. Employers should update their employee handbooks or other policies to reflect these legislative and other changes. Here are some of the most significant changes facing California employers.
Court Takes the Legs Right Out from Underneath Plaintiff's Seating Case
In the first significant ruling of its kind, the Los Angeles Superior Court in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allegations. The plaintiff, Eugina Bright, filed a complaint against 99¢ Only Stores in June 2009 alleging that the store failed to provide her, and all other cashiers, with suitable seating.
New California Employment Laws for 2012
A number of new employment bills making significant changes in California employment law and requiring review of employer human resources policies and employee handbooks has been signed by California Governor Jerry Brown. The new laws are effective January 1, 2012, unless otherwise indicated. We highlight what we believe to be the most significant below.
New California Employment Laws in 2012
On October 9th, Governor Brown signed AB 22 into law. Effective January 1, 2012, the new law prohibits the use of a consumer credit report for employment purposes, with certain exceptions listed below.
California Supply Chain Law Affects Large Retailers and Manufacturers Doing Business in California
Responding to a stated concern over human trafficking and goods that are produced by forced or child labor, the California Legislature passed the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 with the goal of "ensur[ing] large retailers and manufacturers provide consumers with information regarding their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains."1 This is the first state or federal law of its kind. Beginning January 1, 2012, every retailer and manufacturer doing business in California with annual worldwide gross receipts exceeding $100 million must conspicuously disclose on its website the extent to which it does the following:
NEW LAWS FOR CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS
Recently, Governor Brown signed into law a few key bills that mark significant changes for California employers. Employers should prepare now to comply with these new laws (most of which become effective January 1, 2012) and adjust their practices accordingly. Full texts of each of these laws can be found at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/homeTemplate.xhtml.
Retailer Readiness is Key to Compliance with California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act
On January 1, 2012, retailers must be in compliance with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010. Compliance with the Act is relatively simple: retailers are not required to take any affirmative action to ensure that products in their distribution channel do not emanate from companies that rely on slave labor, but must post on their website what, if anything, they are doing to eliminate slave labor from their supply chains.
New Year Brings New Laws for California Employers
During Arnold Schwarzenegger's tenure as governor of California few new employment laws were enacted. This has changed under Gov. Jerry Brown. As the first year of his term concludes he has signed into law several bills that will affect California employers on January 1, 2012. From consumer credit reports to health care benefits, leaves of absence, and new wage and hour requirements, every California employer has something to prepare for in 2012.
California Provides a New "Lift" to Health Care Workers That Must be Shouldered by Their Employers
On October 7, 2011, Governor Brown signed new legislation (AB 1136) requiring general acute care hospitals to maintain a safe patient handling policy and prohibiting the discipline of any health care worker who out of concern for safety refuses to lift, reposition or transfer a patient.
New California Employment Laws Signed by Governor Jerry Brown
On October 9, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a series of bills impacting the landscape of California employment law. Employers will want to take note of these new laws, which may require revision of existing employment policies and practices. Except where indicated, the new laws are effective January 1, 2012.
Paddling on Each Side: How California Private Sector Employers Must Change Their Operations in 2012
In 2011, for the first time since 2003, California's legislative process was controlled by a governor and a legislature of the same party. Yet the results at the end of this year's session were not as one-sided as some had predicted or expected.
Employer Who Sues Ex-Employee Does Not Have to "Indemnify" Ex-Employee for His Attorney Fees
Nicholas Laboratories, LLC sued its former employee, Chen. Ultimately, the parties resolved the case. Chen sought reimbursement of his fees under Labor Code Section 2802.
California Governor Signs New Employment Bills
Below are brief explanations of these new laws that affect private employers along with links to the actual bill language. Each of these bills will become effective January 1, 2012. Ogletree Deakins is sponsoring seminars in Los Angeles (October 18), Orange County (October 19) and San Francisco (October 20) where attorneys will discuss these new legislative updates in more detail. On December 7, the firm also will conduct a webinar on the new California laws. For more information or to register for the webinar, contact Moira Cue at (310) 217-8191 (ext. 221).
California Employers No Longer Subject to State or Local E-Verify Requirements
Executive Summary: Bucking a recent trend in state immigration laws that require E-Verify use by employers, California has forged its own path by enacting "The Employment Acceleration Act of 2011" (California Assembly Bill 1236). The new law – signed by Governor Jerry Brown this past weekend – prohibits state and local governments in California from passing local mandates that require employers use the federal E-verify program to electronically verify the employment eligibility of newly hired employees.
California Governor Brown Signs Employment Bills at Last Minute
In my last post, I said that Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bunch of ill-conceived laws. Well, I posted too soon, and I take that back.
California Bill Would Prohibit Mandatory E-Verify
On September 6, 2011, the California State Senate passed Assembly Bill 1236 (AB 1236), the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which now heads to Governor Jerry Brown. The Act
prohibits the state, counties, cities and special districts from mandating that employers use an electronic employment verification program (such as E-Verify), except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. The Act’s prohibition on mandating use of an electronic employment verification program specifically applies in the following circumstances:
Vacation or Sabbatical? California Court Defines The Difference
What is a sabbatical? The devil is in the details. Some employers offer these extended paid leaves to long-term employees. Unlike vacation, unused sabbaticals are not cashed out upon termination of employment. But in the muddy waters of California employment law, a poorly designed sabbatical program may in fact be deemed vacation by the court. A recent appellate case titled Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. attempted to define the difference between sabbaticals and vacation.
SABBATICAL PROGRAMS UNDER ATTACK IN CALIFORNIA
A recent California Court of Appeal ruling involving sabbatical
programs typifies what is meant by the old adage "no good deed goes unpunished."
GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS BILL ENHANCING STATE'S PAID ORGAN AND BONE MARROW DONATION LEAVE LAW
Senate Bill No. 272 amends Labor Code Section 1510, clarifying and enhancing California's law mandating paid leaves of absence for employees participating in organ or bone marrow donation. The law provides that employers with 15 or more employees are required to grant as much as 30 days of paid leave, within a one year period, for employees serving as organ donors, and up to 5 days of paid leave within a one year period for employees donating bone marrow.
EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINE: SURVIVING LABOR BOARD SCRUTINY
When disciplining employees, employers must communicate to employees the effects of their misconduct, rather than simply cite the workplace rule that was violated, according to a recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board. Employers who ignore this directive risk having disciplinary action overturned if the rule which the discipline is based upon is successfully challenged by an employee or a union.
Will Your Business be in Compliance with the California Transparency in Supply Chain Act by the January 1, 2012 Deadline?
Executive Summary: On January 1, 2012, retail sellers and manufacturers doing business in the state of California will be required to disclose their efforts to remove slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chains for tangible goods offered for sale.
Court of Appeal: False Social Security Number = Unclean Hands = No Case
Vicente Salas worked for Sierra Chemical Company. He was seasonal, and was repeatedly laid off and re-hired. Along the way, he injured himself. The company allegedly denied him re-hire after he did not produce a release from his doctor. Salas claimed he was told he had to be 100% healed, which is one of those ADA no-nos. He sued for a variety of employment based claims, including disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, etc.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS: 2010-2011
Every year, the California Supreme Court decides cases that have significant impact for California employers. In its most recent term, the Court addressed a variety of relevant employment issues. Below, we summarize some important cases, and also address additional key issues awaiting the Court’s review.
California Legislature Clarifies Paid Bone Marrow Leave
Governor Brown just signed SB 272, which clarifies last year's paid bone marrow /organ donation leave law. That law requires employers to grant up to five days' paid leave for bone marrow donation and up to 30 days' paid leave for organ donation.
California Legislative Update.
Although Governor Brown vetoed a mandatory commuter benefit for employees, a few other employment laws are winding through the California legislature, including a ban on credit checks and bereavement leave entitlements.
Calif.'s Canary In The Employment Mine Shaft
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) Director Phyllis W. Cheng, speaking at the Jackson Lewis LLP-sponsored Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Labor and Employment Committee Meeting on Feb. 22, 2011, told the gathering of business lawyers that the agency would continue to pursue high-impact cases of “systemic discrimination” in the workplace as a means of leveraging its resources in a time of government austerity.
California Legislative Update
The California legislature wasted no time in 2011. Politicians in the Golden State’s Assembly and Senate have already introduced pro-labor employment law legislation. It remains to be seen how our new governor, Jerry Brown, will respond to such legislation if it is passed on both the Assembly and Senate.
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2011: NEW PAID ORGAN AND BONE MARROW DONATION LEAVE LAW
Effective January 1, 2011, employers with 15 or more employees are required to grant as much as 30 days of paid leave, within a one year period, for employees serving as organ donors, and up to 5 days of paid leave for employees donating bone marrow. These new provisions were added to the California Labor Code and are intended to encourage participation in organ and bone marrow donation programs by easing the financial burden on employees when missing work to undergo transplant procedures.
Sit On It: Ongoing California Class Action Trend Addresses Employee Right to A Seat
Most California businesses are generally familiar with provisions in California’s labor regulations relating to minimum wage, overtime, and exempt classifications. But the regulations include a number of lesser known provisions, which some businesses may inadvertently violate. Of course this creates an opening for class action lawyers to prey on employers. One such provision relates to the provision of seats for employees. A recent class action lawsuit titled Home Depot USA v. Superior Court illustrates this developing litigation trend.
2011 New Years Resolutions For Human Resources.
So whats it going to be for 2011? Get up and go to the gym every morning? Finally pay off those credit cards? Learn to speak Dutch? Before you finish the list of New Years resolutions, lets suggest a few on the human resources front. Sure, some of these seem obvious, but then again, so is losing ten pounds (again). Pick a few and knock them off early in the year, and call it a good start.
NEW IRS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE
The IRS just announced an increase in the standard mileage rates, effective January 1, 2011. The new rate will be 51 cents per mile for all business miles driven. This increase is important because California employers have a legal duty to reimburse employees for all necessary expenses incurred in performing their jobs. This includes reimbursing employees who drive their own vehicles for business purposes.
An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Litigation
Wading through complex employment laws is often a challenging endeavor for employers. This has been especially true during the last several years, as companies have been reorganizing their workforces, cutting costs and tightening their budgets to stay competitive. If you were one of these employers, it's likely that you were required to reexamine the classification of certain employees who, as a result of the change in their duties, no longer met the exemption requirements.
Court of Appeal: Employer's Lawsuit Against Terminated Employees Beats Anti-SLAPP Motion.
Overhill Farms received notice from the IRS that hundreds of its employees' social security numbers were invalid. The company gave employees a chance to correct the problem. Those who did not were terminated. The law imposes fines and potential criminal liability on employers who permit employees to work with false social security numbers.
California Court Rules Employer Had No Right to Eliminate Reduced Sales Quotas for Senior Agents.
In a case brought by insurance agents, the California appeals court has ruled that an employer may not unilaterally eliminate certain obligations to employees contained in a policy that did not have an indefinite duration. McCaskey v. California State Auto. Assn, No. H032186 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2010). Reversing summary judgment for the employer, the Court held that a triable issue of fact existed regarding the duration of the policy and allowed the case to proceed to trial.
Labor & Employment Law Legislation: New California And Federal Laws Enacted In 2010.
California lawmakers have added a new leave entitlement for qualified private sector employees who volunteer to donate an organ or bone marrow. As an incentive to encourage people to save lives, the legislature provides that employees who participate will receive generous leave rights, including paid time off.
Significant 2010 California and Federal Labor & Employment Law Cases.
When an employee sues his employer alleging discrimination, he often lacks direct evidence that the decision maker acted on an illegal motive. The evidence is often circumstantial. Sometimes, among other evidence, employees seek to establish discriminatory decision by offering evidence that a co-worker or other uninvolved employee made a stray derogatory remark. Should that evidence be admissible? Under federal law, the evidence is often excluded, but in California the admissibility of such stray remarks has been up in the airuntil the 2010 California Supreme Court case Reid v. Google.
2010 Labor & Employment Regulatory And Agency Update.
California's Division of Workers' Compensation issued new regulations in the fall of this year. The new regulations require all employers to post a notice of certain workers compensation rights. As a result of recent amendments to the Divisions regulations, a the poster has been revised and all employers are required to post the updated version.
California Court Allows Employer's Defamation Lawsuit to Proceed against Protestors.
An employers defamation lawsuit against protesters who wrongly accused it of racially motivated firings could proceed, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in an unpublished opinion. Overhill Farms Inc. v. Lopez, No. G042984 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2010). Affirming the denial of the protestors motion to dismiss the employers complaint, the Court rejected their argument that the accusations were a form of protected expressions of opinion. Instead, the Court found the protestors statements were factual assertions that the employer could challenge. The Court further ruled that Section 425.16 of the California Civil Code, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP law, did not preclude the employers defamation claim.
California Court Rules State Law Allows Cashier Not Given Suitable Seating to Pursue Civil Penalty Claim
Employers in California may be at risk for significant penalties under Californias requirement that employees be provided with suitable seating, under a ruling of a state appeals court in Bright v. 99 Only Stores, No. B220016 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2010). The case was brought under state Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 7-2001(14), specifying the requirement, and the Labor Codes Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which permits aggrieved employees to sue for civil penalties for a violation of the state Labor Code.
"Suitable Seating" Class Action Goes Forward
Retailers must provide "suitable seating" in accordance with the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order 7-2001, section 14. It says: "All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats."
NEW GOVERNOR, NEW EMPLOYMENT LAWS COMING
Elections have consequences for employers and their lawyers. Governor Brown may turn out to be a pro-business governor, sensitive to the delicate economic conditions employers face, persistent high unemployment, and the incredible patchwork of laws and regulations already daunting employers. Sure, and the Easter Bunny is on his short list for Labor Commissioner.
California Adds New Paid Leave Law Rights For Organ Donors At Employer Expense
California lawmakers have added a new leave entitlement for qualified private sector employees who volunteer to donate an organ or bone marrow. As an incentive to encourage people to save lives, the legislature provides that employees who participate will receive generous leave rights, including paid time off. Employers should become familiar with the new laws provisions.
PROPOSITION 19 UPDATE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROMISES VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL DRUG LAWS IF BALLOT MEASURE PASSES
When Californians go to the polls on November 2nd, one of the measures on the ballot will be Proposition 19. Officially known as "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010",the ballot measure seeks to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in a private residence (or other non-public place) by anyone over the age of 21. If passed, the initiative will create a host of very serious problems for California employers.
NEW LAWS FOR CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS.
This year, as in years past, the Legislature presented Governor Schwarzenegger with a number of workplace-related bills. The Governor chose to veto a number of bills that would have significantly impacted employers, and signed a few about which employers should be aware. We summarize the key laws below.
PROPOSITION 19 PRESENTS MANY CHALLENGES FOR EMPLOYERS
When Californian's go to the polls on November 2nd,
one of the measures on the ballot will be Proposition 19. Officially known as "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010", the ballot measure seeks to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in a private residence (or other non-public place) by anyone over the age of 21. If passed, the initiative will create a host of very serious problems for California employers.
California Legislative Roundup 2010.
Although the California legislature has been preoccupied with a near melt down relating to budget fights, several labor and employment bills were passed by the legislature. However, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed bills that would have affected the private sector. Below is a summary of the dead bills.
Will California Go To Pot? Proposition 19 Would Limit Control Over Pothead Employees.
California is on the verge of legalizing the possession and use of marijuana. The California November 2nd ballot includes Proposition 19. Unlike the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), which legalized only the medical use of marijuana, Proposition 19 would legalize recreational use. Moreover, unlike the 1996 law, Proposition 19 includes specific protections for pothead employees. What should California employers know about the proposed law?
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS 2009-2010.
The California Supreme Court decided significant employment law cases since our last review in 2009. The Courts opinions address a number of topics of interest to employers: wage and hour law, harassment, arbitration agreements, attorney-client privilege, and the significance of stray remarks. However, the Court also left many issues for lawyers to wrangle with in the future. We summarize below the recently decided cases.
California Legislature Seeks New Employer Restrictions; Cal Supreme Court Defines Employer.
In addition to AB 482, described in the previous article, regarding restrictions on the use of credit checks, a few other bills hostile to employers are pending in Sacramento.
California and Federal Law Regarding Teenage Employment During The Summer.
Summer is here (almost) and many teenagers will be hitting the workforce to earn a few extra dollars. Companies who hire teenagers should be aware that state and federal law restricts the use of minors or child labor.
SLAPPING THE BOSS.
There are a number of ways employers can raise a former employee's ire. These include contesting an unemployment claim or reporting the former employee to a licensing agency. Sometimes ex-employees retaliate with litigation they would not have filed were it not for the employer's action. The ex-worker's claim may involve significant potential liability and defense costs, possibly motivating the employer to settle or dismiss the initial action.
DRIVING FOR DOLLARS.
The daily commute would be more pleasant if workers were paid for their time. The only thing that could make listening to music, talking on the phone, and sipping a hot beverage while driving more fun would be wages accruing with each lurch forward. Traffic jams, the risk of accidents, and insufferably bad driving no doubt would be less frustrating, too.
Survey Illustrates Cost of Defense and Liability In Employment Discrimination Claims.
A recent study released by UCLA-RAND Center for Law and Public Policy included a survey of defense costs and jury awards in California employment law discrimination cases.
California EDD Update: Procedural Blunder Thwarts Employers EDD Tax Appeal.
When the California EDD takes on a company for misclassifying employees as independent contractors, the battle starts on the EDDs own turf, in an administrative review process. Ultimately, a company can appeal a tax determination to the courts, but only if the right procedures are followed. In a case titled Merchandising Concept Group, Inc. v. EDD, the employer did not follow the correct procedure and therefore could not challenge the EDDs tax assessment.
California Supreme Court Rounds Out 2009 With Two Employment Law Cases.
The California Supreme Court rounded out 2009 with two important employment law decisions. In a case titled Schacter v. Citigroup, the Court considered whether California law permits an employer to design an incentive pay plan calling for forfeiture of pay for employees who quit or are fired for misconduct before an established date. In Roby v. McKesson, the Court scrutinized the fine line between workplace discrimination and harassment.
California Earned Income Tax Credit Notice Must Be Delivered This Month.
The California legislature has added yet another notice that must be given to employees. Effective January 1, 2008, California employers who are required to provide unemployment insurance must notify all employees that they may be eligible for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
EMPLOYMENT LAW ON THE MENU.
Whether it is menu planning, budgeting, negotiating leases or franchise agreements, monitoring the internet for the latest customer reviews, or getting food prepared and to the table, restaurateurs are pulled in many directions every day. With such diverse and unrelenting pressures, it is easy to overlook compliance with the many employment laws governing the workplace. Many restaurants are small employers, without the resources to employ human resources management. It is left to the chef, general manager, or owner to know the law and apply it correctly.
2009 California New Labor & Employment Laws.
Though the legislature in Sacramento proposed plenty of labor and employment legislation in 2009, relatively few bills were signed into law. Below is a summary of the new laws of major significance.
2009 Government Agency Employment Law Opinions and Regulations.
With the economy in flux, businesses are looking for ways to reduce payroll without losing talent. Some companies have put their hourly workers on a work furlough by reducing the number of hours or days in a weekly schedule. But can the same be done for salaried exempt workers? Normally, salaries cannot be adjusted based on the number of hours worked in a workweek.
2009 California Supreme Court Labor & Employment Law Cases.
In a case involving secret videotaping, the California Supreme Court ruled that although employees may sometimes have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, an employer may sometimes intrude upon that privacy for legitimate business reasons.
Retail Industry: Sanity Prevails in California.
It's true: the California appeals court struck down a particularly nutty employment law, one which required anyone who bought a Los Angeles supermarket to retain the prior owner's employees. The California Supreme Court is due to review the decision.
GOVERNOR SIGNS CALCHAMBER-SUPPORTED BILL PROTECTING BUSINESSES FROM MERITLESS LAWSUITS.
A California Chamber of Commerce-supported bill that protects businesses from meritless lawsuits was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last week.
California Labor And Employment Legislation Fizzles In 2009.
The California legislature proposed a number of new labor and employment laws in 2009. However, as the politicians battled through a major budget meltdown, the bills either stalled in committee or were vetoed by the governor. Below is a summary of the more significant ones.
USE OF CONTRACTORS CARRIES HIDDEN RISK.
If you hire a contractor to perform construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, or security services, there is a huge financial risk you need to know about. Under a little known provision in the California Labor Code, your company could be held liable to the contractor's employees in the event the contractor skirts its labor law obligations.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS: 2008-2009 TERM.
Every year, the California Supreme Court decides cases that affect the workplace. Here are some of the most important employment law opinions since our last update in July 2008.
PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIAS LABOR CODE.
An on-going debate regarding whether certain provisions of Californias Labor Code apply to public entities may be a bit closer to resolution. The Labor Code clearly applies to private employers. In some areas, however, it is silent as to its application to public employers. Fortunately, the California Court of Appeal recently shed some light on this issue. In Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, the Court held that Californias Labor Code provisions governing daily overtime, meal periods, and payment of wages upon separation of employment do not apply to water storage districts.
Californias Discrimination Claim Rate Outpaces National Average.
California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) published an annual report in May, and the statistics reveal a much higher rate of some types of employee discrimination claims than is seen on the national level.
Taking Stimulus Money Requires Following Rules (pdf).
The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA) is infusing billions of dollars
into the private sector. To ensure that the
monies are actually used for their intended purpose,
Congress added a powerful whistleblower
provision into the law.
California Employment Law Legislative Update.
Change is constant when it comes to California labor and employment law. Employers should keep an eye on the following legislation currently pending in Sacramento in the areas of alternative workweek schedules, mandatory paid sick leave, California Ledbetter and more.
INVESTIGATIONS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RULED CONSTITUTIONAL.
Like all employers, public-sector employers (such as government agencies) conduct internal investigations concerning a variety of issues. Some investigations are occasioned by claims of unfair treatment. Others result from possible unlawful activity in the workplace.
CHINDARAH V. PICK UP STIX, INC.: A BONA FIDE VICTORY FOR EMPLOYERS.
California law prohibits employees from waiving or releasing their rights to minimum wages, overtime, and other minimum protections. For example, Labor Code section 1194 prohibits agreements by employees to work for less than minimum wage or without receiving overtime. Section 206.5 prohibits releases of wages concededly due. Section 2804 prohibits an employee from waiving the right to indemnification under Labor Code section 2802 for expenses incurred in the scope of employment. Section 5001 bars the release of an employees claim for workers compensation benefits unless approved by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.
New California Laws In Effect For 2009.
Effective July 1, 2008, Senate Bill 1613 provides that it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, unless a hands-free device for the cell phone is used. A violation of this law will be punishable by a fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense.
2008 California Supreme Court Labor and Employment Law Cases.
A review of significant 2008 California Supreme Court decisions that will affect the way you interact with your employers. The Court addressed major issues related to discrimination, medical leave, noncompetition agreements, and more.
GOLDEN STATE OF MIND.
Employers based in other states may send their workers to California on sales or service calls, for long-term consulting assignments or for brief meetings. Employers regularly employing workers in California learn - sometimes the hard way - about the many unique employment laws and regulations they must follow, particularly in the "wage and hour" arena. But then there are businesses whose workers enter California only sporadically or for short periods of time. Can it be that an employee who lives and works in Arizona is covered by Arizona law on Monday and California law on Tuesday just because she takes a business trip? Hint: If the answer were "no," this article would be much less interesting.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING INTERNAL EEO COMPLAINT PROCEDURES.
Lawsuits claiming harassment, discrimination or retaliation are expensive to defend. In an effort to resolve equal employment opportunity (EEO) issues before they become legal liabilities, most employers have developed and implemented procedures for dealing with internal EEO complaints. These internal procedures often involve a multi-step process used to evaluate whether the conduct at issue violates the organizations policy and identify solutions to prevent inappropriate conduct from continuing.
EDD Offers Alternative To Layoffs For California Employers.
Some companies are facing tough choices during the current economic downturn. Layoffs may allow the company to survive. But when the economy rebounds, those laid off workers may not be available for rehire. Hiring and training a new workforce is time consuming and expensive.
NEW LAWS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS.
Once again, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a majority of the workplace-related bills passed by the Legislature. Only a handful of new laws will directly affect employers. We summarize those laws, various bills that may reappear in the next legislative session, and a few additional developments below.
Workplace Policies Update: California Bans Texting Behind the Wheel; California Employers Should Update Personnel Policies.
California has banned text messaging while driving, and employers need to respond promptly by updating policies.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS 2007-2008.
The California Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases since our last summary in September 2007. The Courts opinions address a number of topics, including expense reimbursement, employee privacy, government employee due process rights, leaves of absence, drug testing, and retaliation. The Court also accepted review of several decisions that will affect employment law in the months to come. We summarize below the recently decided and pending cases.
New Director Aims To Reinvigorate Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Californias civil rights agency, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing has announced an ambitious three year plan to step up enforcement of the states antidiscrimination laws.
The Differences Between State and Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws.
President Bush recently signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). The new law, when it takes effect at the end of 2009, makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees based on genetic characteristics. Yet, Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) already prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information. In fact, the FEHA has traditionally provided broader protections against discrimination than federal law. This creates confusion for employers who do not understand the many distinctions between the federal and state statutes. While this article does not address all of those distinctions, below are some of the key differences.
A Kin Care Conundrum.
Many employers provide some form of paid sick leave to their employees. In fact, employers are required to do so for employees working in San Francisco. Dont be jealous. The Legislature is considering a bill that would mandate paid sick leave statewide. See Assembly Bill 2716.
Enforcement Update: California DLSE Continues Industry Sweeps, Several Hundred Thousand Dollars In Fines Assessed.
The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and other government agencies have continued the practice of targeting specific industries with surprise audit sweeps. Recently it has raided local restaurants and auto body shops, but other industries are on its hit list.
Two New California Employment Laws Now In Effect.
January 1, 2008, is the effective date of the Earned Income Tax Credit Information Act (the Act). This legislation evolved from a California Franchise Tax Board study showing that approximately 460,000 California families qualified, but did not file, for the federal earned income tax credit (EITC.) The EITC Act requires employers on an annual basis to notify their employees of their potential eligibility for the EITC.
New Laws for California Employers in 2008.
With the New Year comes new legislation. This year, the Legislature presented Governor Schwarzenegger with a number of workplace-related bills. The Governor chose to veto a significant number of bills that would have significantly impacted employers, and signed a few with which employers will need to comply come January. In addition to the legislation the Governor signed this year, a few laws from past years become effective in 2008. The key laws are summarized below.
Judge Strikes Down Controversial Supermarket Ordinance.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a tentative ruling last month, voiding a Los Angeles city ordinance that required supermarkets, occupying more than 15,000 square feet and which changed ownership, to retain existing eligible workers for 90 days after the transfer of ownership.
The Breach of the Duty of Loyalty - What Employers Can Do About It.
A recent report called The Walker Loyalty Report for Loyalty in the Workplace, released in September 2007, noted more than 35% of employees are likely to leave an employer within the first two years of employment. Yet, employers investments in training, recruiting, and compensation continue to rise. Turnover is even more damaging when employees take clients, employees and trade secrets with them. Do employers have the legal right to expect their employees loyalty? And what can an employer do to protect itself from competitive conduct by employees during employment?
California Governor Helps Employers By Vetoing Several Pending Bills.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had until Midnight, October 14, 2007 to act upon all of the legislation that had been pending on his desk. That deadline has now passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger used this time, at least in part, to convey his support for employers within California.
California Supreme Court Issues Two Big Decisions.
The California Supreme Court ended the summer with a bang by announcing two major decisions which could have far-reaching effects. Here is a brief overview of the implications of each case to California employers.
California Court Temporarily Halts Enforcement of No Match Regulation.
In a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO and immigration rights groups, a California federal trial judge has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from mailing no match letter packets or taking any other action to implement its August 15, 2007 regulation entitled Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers who Receive a No-Match Letter. See AFL-CIO v. Chertoff (N.D. Ca. Aug. 31, 2007).
California Supreme Court Employment Law Decisions 2006-2007.
The California Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases since our last summary in August 2006. The Courts opinions address a number of topics, from employment at will to class actions. The Court also has accepted review of several decisions that could be blockbusters in the months to come. We summarize below the recently decided cases and those that remain pending.
California Alert - CA Supreme Court Issues Three Key Decisions.
California employers should be aware of three decisions in the last week that will impact the way they do business here.
Employment Lawsuits Against Individuals.
Plaintiffs in employment law cases frequently name individual employees as defendants. Sometimes, they sue co-workers. More frequently, they name supervisors or managers, and even high-level executives up to the CEO.
California Employment Law Protects Employees Unauthorized to Work.
As anyone paying attention to the news is aware, immigration is a politically charged and volatile issue. Employers as a result must sort through a morass of laws and regulations. There are specific laws and procedures applicable to the employment of non-citizens. It is illegal to employ and retain aliens who are unauthorized to work.
California Management Update (pdf).
Highlights: New Employment Laws for 2007 and Beyond; Finally Some Clarity - California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Approves Sexual Harassment Training Regulations; Companies Must "Shine the Light" on their Security Breaches; Prior Periods of Employment Must be Considered When Determining an Employee's Eligibility for FMLA Leave; California Supreme Court To Review Whether Noncompetition Agreements Are Invalid Even If Narrowly Tailored; Employers May Recover Commissions Advanced To Employees But Never Earned.
