The Immigration and Nationality Act permits employers to petition for their employees who are “Persons of Extraordinary Ability” to immigrate to the United States. For approval of a Person of Extraordinary Ability petition, the employer must demonstrate their employee’s extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim in the field of employment.
Amendments to California’s Paid Sick Leave Law Have Been Enacted and Are Effective Immediately
This week, California’s Governor signed into law urgency legislation passed by the legislature (AB 304) to amend California’s recently enacted paid sick leave law. These amendments take effect immediately and are intended to clarify some areas of ambiguity in the law as originally enacted. While the amendments do provide clarification in some areas, they nonetheless create added confusion and burden for employers that have already adopted or modified paid time off policies to take effect July 1, 2015, based on their best interpretations of the paid sick leave law in its originally enacted form. The amendments also leave a number of ambiguities in the original law unanswered. Click on the link to read the full summary of the amendments.
Classifying Employees as Exempt from Overtime May Become a Lot More Costly
This week, the Department of Labor announced proposed changes to the white-collar overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). If enacted, these changes will significantly impact employers.
Burdensome San Francisco Retail Workers Bill of Rights Takes Effect Next Week
Next week, on July 3, 2015 the ordinances collectively known as the “Retail Workers Bill of Rights” – passed unanimously by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in November 2014 – will go into effect in the City of San Francisco and the City will begin enforcing its provisions. The ordinances require the covered employers to ensure that they meet five major requirements.
Court Refuses Enforcement of Forum Selection and Choice of Law Clauses
The recent published decision issued by the Fourth District California Court of Appeal (May 28) in Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P. will make it more difficult for out-of-state employers to enforce forum selection and choice-of-law clauses in litigation with their California employees. The defendant, Alliantgroup, is a tax consulting firm headquartered in Texas, with one of its eleven regional offices in California. The plaintiff, Rachel Verdugo, brought a class action against the company on behalf of past and present employees, alleging various hour and wage claims under the California Labor Code. Upon being hired to work at Alliantgroup’s Irvine office, Verdugo signed an employment agreement that included a forum selection clause stating that Harris County, Texas would be the exclusive forum for disputes arising out of the agreement. The employment agreement also included a choice-of-law clause, designating Texas law as governing any arising disputes.
California courts have traditionally held that they will not defer to a selected forum if doing so would violate public policy by diminishing the rights of California residents. Furthermore, the courts have established that if the claims at issue are based on rights that California statutes have deemed “unwaivable,” the party seeking to enforce the forum selection clause bears the burden of showing that enforcement will not diminish the substantive rights afforded under California law in any way. In making certain rights “unwaivable,” the California legislature and courts are primarily concerned with providing California residents with all of the protections they are entitled to under California law. In Verdugo, the court ruled that California Labor Code rights are unwaivable. In applying this rule, and the applicable precedent, the Court of Appeal held that defendant Alliantgroup could not enforce the forum selection clause or the choice-of-law provision in the agreement because it failed to show that the forum selection and choice-of-law clauses would not diminish plaintiff Verdugo’s statutory rights by requiring her to litigate her claims in Texas and under Texas law. The court did not create a specific test for determining whether deferring to a forum selection clause will diminish an employee’s rights under the Labor Code.
Although it does not make forum selection and choice of law clauses per se unenforceable, the holding in this case is significant because it places the burden on the employer to show that application of the forum and/or choice of law clause will not diminish the employee’s rights.
Quickie NLRB Elections Look Like They Are Here To Stay
There were two major court challenges filed to stop the NLRB from moving forward with its quickie election rules. Developments in both of those cases indicate that the court system is unlikely to reverse the rules. Last month, the Western District Court of Texas threw out the lawsuit filed by the NFIB and Associated Buidling Contractors challenging the rules on privacy and free speech grounds. Although the lawsuit filed by United States Chamber of Commerce, SHRM and other groups is still pending, the District Court for the District of Columbia refused the request of the plaintiff’s to issue a temporary restraining order, indicating that it does not view the claims favorably.
SCOTUS Denies Review of Another Case Involving PAGA Representative Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreement
The United States Supreme Court unfortunately denied review in Bridgestone Retail Operations v. Milton Brown (Docket No. 14-790) – thereby declining a second opportunity to review the California Supreme Court’s determination that PAGA representative action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are not enforceable. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which first presented the issue for review before the high Court. In Iskanian, the California Supreme Court of course held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, but that PAGA representative action waivers are not. The Iskanian Court’s reasoning is difficult to square with U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility. As such, many employers were hoping the Court would grant review if not in Iskanian then at least in Bridgestone — with the issue being presented for a second time in that case. No such luck.
U.S. Supreme Court Sides With EEOC in Abercrombie Headscarf Case
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, reversing a Tenth Circuit win for the retailer in a religious discrimination case brought by a Muslim applicant who was denied employment due to her headscarf being a violation of Abercrombie’s dress policy – which prohibited caps of any kind.
Employment-Related Bills Pending Before The California Legislature
There are a number of employment-related bills pending before the California legislature this session. While it is too early to tell which of these bills ultimately will be passed and signed into law, California employers may wish to follow the progress of some of these bills and/or to submit comments, opposition, or support (for the most part, unlikely) for a particular bill.
Quickie Election Procedures and Timeline Takes Effect on April 14, 2015
This is just a quick reminder that effective today all NLRB elections will be conducted under the new election rules. These rules call for substantially shorter election periods (from the time of the election petition until the actual voting), electronic notice provisions, union rights to employee email addresses and other contact information, and many other changes. The NLRB has published a good summary of the new rules in their fact sheet. Given these new rules, if your organization is worried about union activity or organization, you must act immediately upon notice of any organizing activity to make sure you have sufficient time to react and present your views and position to your employees. With elections now proceeding on 3 week time frames (from petition to voting) and with a significant amount of work to be done with the NLRB during that time, waiting until an election petition is received will no longer be an effective strategy.
Ninth Circuit Decision Challenges Enforceability of "No Future Employment" Provisions in Employment Separation and Settlement Agreements
To resolve employment disputes, whether in litigation or at a separation, typically, the parties wish to go in separate directions and not cross paths in the future. Consequently, separation or settlement agreements provide compensation and employees often agree not to seek future employment with their former employer and agree that should they unexpectedly come to work for their former employer due to an acquisition, merger or other incident that cause will exist to terminate that employee. The viability of such "no future employment" provisions has been called into question by the Ninth Circuit’s decision earlier this week in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians. In Golden, the Ninth Circuit overturned a District Court’s order finding a "no future employment" provision enforceable. The Ninth Circuit extended the reach of Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008), and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600, to settlement agreements in a case of first impression by a 2-1 decision over Judge Kozinski’s dissent. The Ninth Circuit was not moved by the fact that the plaintiff was being paid a large sum of money, in part, to move on and give up his right to work for or seek employment with his former employer. Nor was it convinced by Judge Kozinski’s dissenting conclusion that the California Supreme Court would uphold such an agreement. The Court directed the lower court to re-examine the agreement to make a determination as to whether the provision constitutes a substantial restraint on the plaintiff’s trade, in order to determine whether the provision was enforceable. California employers should continue to monitor this case on remand before the district court and consider the impact of this decision in conjunction with preparing separation and settlement agreements arising out of employment to make every effort to ensure enforceability of any "no future employment" provision.
New FLSA Overtime Exemption Regulations Still Under Consideration By Department of Labor
Earlier this week, Secretary of Labor Perez announced that her agency is still working hard on revising the regulations governing the existing white collar overtime exemptions. These regulations were originally expected to be published in early 2015. However, that did not happen. Secretary Perez now expects that the regulations will be finalized and published this spring.
Oakland Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Law Effective This Week
In addition to having to comply with the new statewide paid sick leave law, California employers with employees in Oakland need to ensure that they are complying with a new Oakland minimum wage and paid sick leave measure that took effect March 2, 2015.