California Private Sector Employment Legislation Update
May 31 was the deadline for most California state bills to pass their house of origin to be further considered in this year’s legislative session, so the winnowing proceeds.
Insurance Claims Adjuster Not Exempt Due To Compensation Terms
When classifying workers under the executive or administrative exemption, employers tend to focus on the duties of the position. Attention must also be given to the second part of the exemption criteria, the salary basis of pay. In a recent California case titled Negri v. Koning & Associates, the employer overlooked this very basic requirement.
Grocery Store Assistant Manager Entitled to Overtime Pay
The misclassification of exempt workers continues to fuel wage and hour litigation. Trouble often arises where lower level managers supervise other workers but also perform non-exempt work. In a recent California case titled Heyen v. Safeway, Inc., an assistant grocery store manager challenged her exempt status. The court’s ruling highlights the problems employers face in getting the classification right.
Maritime Operator’s Fishy Conduct Deemed Unlawful Retaliation
What happens when an employer leaks the terms of a “confidential” settlement agreement and sets into motion a series of crude, rude, and offensive conduct that ends with one employee quitting? As you might expect, it can lead to a lawsuit. But not all of the bad behavior leads to actionable claims. In McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al., the court explained how that series of crude, rude, and offensive behavior was not enough to hold the employer liable for sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it was enough to impose liability for retaliation.
Who's Minding the Store? -- California Court Ignores FLSA Regulation on Multi-Tasking and Rejects Employer's Claimed Exemption for Store Manager
A state appellate court in Los Angeles recently addressed the "multi-tasking" responsibilities of managerial employees and interpreted California's wage and hour laws in a manner different from FLSA regulations. In Heyen v. Safeway, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District affirmed an advisory jury and court decision in favor of a grocery store assistant manager whom the jury and court found did not qualify for the executive exemption from overtime compensation under California law because the assistant manager regularly spent more than 50 percent of her work hours doing "non-exempt" tasks such as bagging groceries, bookkeeping, and stocking shelves.
New CA Pregnancy Regulations FAQ
We have been getting a lot of questions recently about the new CA pregnancy regulations which took effect on January 1st of this year. While most of the rules stayed the same, the new regulations did add some additional compliance burdens which covered employers (those with 5+ employees) should know about. Below is an FAQ addressing the key changes. As always, we suggest that you review these matters with your contact at the firm if you have any questions.
Waiver of Vacation Pay on Termination in Collective Agreements Must be Clear and Unmistakable, California Court Rules
California law prohibits “use it or lose it” vacation policies. Under the California Labor Code (Section 227.3), employers must pay terminated employees all accrued vacation, “unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement.” Examining the meaning of the collective-bargaining-agreement exception for the first time, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employer is liable for unpaid pro rata vacation where its agreement with the union did not “clearly and unmistakably waive” the employees’ rights under Section 227.3. Choate v. Celite Corp., No. B239160 (Cal. Ct. App. May 2, 2013). However, the Court reversed judgment imposing waiting time penalties against the employer because it found the employer did not act willfully.
L.A. County Must Provide Non-Union Employees’ Home Addresses, Phone Numbers to Union, California Supreme Court Rules
Los Angeles County must provide the union representing its employees under an “agency shop” agreement with the home addresses and telephone numbers of all county employees, including non-union employees, the California Supreme Court has ruled. County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm’n (Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 721), No. S191944 (Cal. May 30, 2013). Although the Court recognized the non-union employees had a right to privacy in their home addresses and telephone numbers under the California Constitution and their disclosure was a serious invasion of that right, the Court determined the union’s interest in communicating with employees significantly outweighed their privacy rights. The Court further ruled the Court of Appeal erred in imposing procedural requirements limiting the disclosure of the non-union employees’ contact information.
Legal Alert: In An Effort To Raise Awareness Of Human Trafficking California Requires Certain Businesses And Establishments to Post Public Notices Regarding Victims' Rights
Executive Summary: The California Legislature has enacted a new law that requires certain businesses in the hospitality, transportation, and healthcare industries to post public notices regarding slavery and human trafficking or face stiff penalties. This new law became effective on April 1, 2013 and is the latest in California's efforts to combat this unlawful multi-million dollar industry.
Washington Forum Selection Clause Enforced by California Court in Non-Compete Action
A California federal court recently dismissed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that a non-compete agreement is unenforceable under California law, upholding the parties’ Washington forum selection clause. Meras Engineering, Inc. v. CH20, Inc., No. C-11-0389 EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). CH20 is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Washington. Meras Engineering, a competitor of CH20, is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Rich Bernier and Jay Sughroue are citizens of California who used to work for CH20 almost exclusively in California. Their employment agreements with CH20 each contained a non-compete clause, a Washington choice of law clause, and a forum selection clause designating Washington as the exclusive forum for lawsuits over their agreements.