Brian McDermott and Zachary Ahonen author “5 Questions PEOs Commonly Ask About Non-Competes, Other Restrictive Covenants,” published by PEO Insider.
Archives for March 3, 2023
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.
Earlier this week, the California Court of Appeal reached a decision that may ease employers’ worries when presented with a wage and hour lawsuit.
California’s plaintiff-friendly laws provide avenues for plaintiffs to fill their pockets with penalties and attorneys’ fees, in addition to any wages they claim are owed. However, as decided on Monday in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., plaintiffs will have to work a little harder to prove they are entitled to additional penalties and fees.
When an employee claims that they have not been paid all the wages they were entitled to both during and after their employment, they typically seek additional penalties and fees under Labor Code sections 203 and 226. To prevail on these claims, the employee must prove that the employer’s failure to pay certain wages was either “willful” under Labor Code Section 203, or “knowing and intentional” under Labor Code Section 226. In Monday’s decision, the Court held that an employer’s “good faith dispute” can prevent the employee from collecting penalties and attorneys’ fees for “willful” or “knowing and intentional” violations.
In this decision, the Court recognized that California Code of Regulation Section 13520 applies to Labor Code Section 203. Under this regulation, if the employer has a “good faith belief” that it complied with the law at the time final wages were due, then the employer’s violation is not considered “willful.” As a result, an employer who presents evidence establishing a good faith dispute can prevent the employee from collecting penalties under Labor Code Section 203.
Labor Code Section 226 allows plaintiffs to collect both penalties and attorneys’ fees if the employee can successfully demonstrate that the employer knowing and intentionally failed to provide compliant wage statements. In this case, the plaintiff argued that the employer’s mere knowledge that meal period premiums were not included on his wage statements demonstrated a knowing and intentional violation. However, the employer demonstrated that it had a good faith belief that it was not violating any laws when it did not include meal period premiums on its wage statements, therefore the Court held that it could not have knowingly and intentionally violated Labor Code Section 226.
Unfortunately, a minority of federal district courts in California do not hold that an employer’s good faith belief is sufficient to preclude a finding of knowing and intentional violation. These courts adopted the standard the plaintiff argued that “knowing and intentional” can be satisfied by simply showing that an employer provided an inadequate wage statement that was not a result of clerical error or inadvertent mistake. However, this Court disagreed with this interpretation, concluding that a good faith dispute can preclude plaintiffs from being entitled to penalties and attorneys’ fees under Labor Code Section 226.
Exxon Sued by US After Five Nooses Found at Louisiana Plant
EEOC claims Exxon allowed hostile work place for Black worke
Almost half of employees don’t believe their bosses’ praise is genuine. Here’s what leaders can do to fix that
Employers know that showing their staff appreciation is key to engagement.
Union leaders say New York state workforce could see mass exodus for better pay, hybrid work
New York’s ‘decimated and starved’ state workforce needs higher pay and teleworking flexibility, leaders of the Public Employees Federation said Wednesday.
The Perks Workers Want Also Make Them More Productive
Now if only corporations would listen …
American workers aren’t returning to the office like their international counterparts—here’s why
Workers around the world throughout Europe and Asia are going back to the office while U.S. employees are still working from home.
Office Mandates. Pickleball. Beer. What Will Make Hybrid Work Stick?
Hybrid work has been choose-your-own-adventure, but now C.E.O.s are making their choices more permanent.
Starbucks violated labor laws with ‘egregious’ misconduct during unionization efforts, judge rules
Starbucks committed “hundreds of unfair labor practices” during unionization efforts at stores in the Buffalo, New York, area, a National Labor Relations Board judge has ruled.
Judge says Starbucks committed ‘egregious and widespread’ labor violations fighting unions
Starbucks committed “egregious and widespread” violations of federal law in its campaign to halt unions, a federal administrative judge ruled Wednesday, ordering the company to give back pay and damages to workers who launched national organizing efforts.
It may be easier to sue your employer for sexual harassment now, but one huge barrier is preventing real progress
More than half of women experience workplace harassment at some point in their careers. And that doesn’t take into account men or nonbinary workers who face similar issues.
H-2B Cap for Fiscal Year 2023 Is Met: A Supplemental Cap Increase Summary
On March 2, 2023, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified the public that the 33,000 H-2B cap positions within the second half of the fiscal year had been reached. DHS indicated that the number of positions for which DHS had received petitions surpassed the number of total H-2B