On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, resolving a dispute among the appellate courts and concluding that Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims may not be stricken as unmanageable.
While some have read the decision as a resounding victory for the plaintiffs’ bar that will force every PAGA case to settle for large amounts, the decision does no such thing.
It may challenge employers and their lawyers to be more creative, but it does not mean that every PAGA action now warrants an outsized ...
With limited exceptions, California law does not require employers to provide employees with a premium rate of pay for working during holidays or paid days off for holidays unless contractually obligated to do so. However, many employers chose to do so for a variety of reasons. For employers that choose to provide holiday benefits, your “presents” is requested for this read.
Why offer holiday pay?
Many employers voluntarily elect to offer holiday benefits. Some common reasons for doing so are:
- Boosting employee morale;
- Increasing company loyalty;
- Making an employment offer ...
There is a comedian by the name of Jeff Foxworthy who has been enormously popular for the past two decades or so.
Perhaps you are familiar with him. (And if you are, you probably thought that you stumbled upon the wrong blog just now.)
Remarkably, Mr. Foxworthy’s name comes up frequently when talking about whether workers have been properly classified as independent contractors. Not because there is anything funny about that issue; there isn’t. And not because Mr. Foxworthy was misclassified as an independent contractor. Instead, his name pops up because Mr. Foxworthy has ...
An amended version of AB 1228 was passed in the California Legislature on September 14, 2023, [1] which would raise minimum wages for fast food workers and water down the authority of the new Fast Food Council that was created in a bill passed last year. AB 1228, originally introduced on February 16, 2023, was revised on September 11, 2023 after negotiations occurred between labor unions and the fast food industry. It significantly modifies provisions from the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (FAST Recovery Act) passed last year, which does not go into effect ...
An amended version of SB 525 was passed in the California Legislature on September 14, 2023, [1] which would raise minimum wages for health care workers across the state, starting June 1, 2024. SB 525 is now awaiting signature or veto from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until October 14, 2023 to sign or veto this bill.
CHANGES IN MINIMUM WAGES:
SB 525 sets forth different tiers of minimum wage increases that vary based on the following:
- Large health systems and dialysis clinics:[2]
- Minimum wage for covered health care employees shall be:
- From June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2025 ...
- Minimum wage for covered health care employees shall be:
With $3 million in funding from A.B. 102, California’s recent appropriations bill, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the administrative body charged by statute to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions, will reconvene for the first time since 2004, when it was defunded for budgetary reasons. The IWC was established in 1913 and has gone through several changes throughout the years. Its most recent, lasting impact on employment in California, however, consists of 17 “wage orders” regulating the wages, hours and working conditions in specific industries.
The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District recently issued its opinion regarding business-related expenses in Thai v. International Business Machines Corporation. The Court found that expenses incurred by employees in direct consequence of performing their jobs may be reimbursable regardless of whether such expenses are directly caused by the employer.
Paul Thai was employed by defendant and respondent IBM. Thai required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, a computer and accessories in order to perform the functions of his job. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a stay-at-home order that instructed all California residents “[t]o stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors” and any other additional sectors later designated as critical. After the order went into effect, IBM directed Thai and thousands of other workers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and the other IBM workers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home, and IBM did not reimburse them for those expenses.
On July 21, 2023, a unanimous three-judge panel once again affirmed a California federal court’s ruling that the truck drivers who deliver ingredients from Domino’s Southern California Supply Chain Center to Domino’s California franchisees are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
Employers with operations both large and small in California are all too familiar with California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), the controversial 2004 statute that permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s attorney general and file suit on behalf of other employees to seek to recover penalties for alleged Labor Code violations.
PAGA lawsuits are filed with great regularity by members of the plaintiffs’ bar.
And the in terrorem effect of PAGA lawsuits, in which a plaintiff need not satisfy class certification criteria to represent an entire workforce, has led many employers to pay large settlements just to avoid legal fees and the possibility of larger awards -- even when the evidence of unlawful conduct is spotty or entirely absent.
Handbooks are developed to outline policies and procedures employees must abide by in the workplace. But a handbook serves a dual, equally important purpose: to act as an operable defense against workplace claims brought by employees as a way to demonstrate that the employer had equitable and compliant policies in place.
In California, employers are required to disseminate such workplace information to employees another way: through workplace postings. The Department of Industrial Relations requires workplace postings be displayed in a ‘conspicuous’ place where they are easily visible to the intended audience, such as a bulletin board or mail-room/break-room wall or, in special circumstances, in a binder if there is no room to post such materials. In California, every business must post not only the Wage Order(s) that apply to its operation and the minimum wage[1] where employees can see them, but also 16 other employment notices. Failure to post required, up-to-date notices can have serious consequences, including costly penalties[2] and criminal charges.
The California Supreme Court has issued its highly anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., concluding that plaintiffs who must arbitrate their “individual” PAGA claims are not deprived of standing to pursue “non-individual” PAGA claims in court on behalf of others.
More precisely, Justice Goodwin H. Liu wrote that “an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.”
The current statewide minimum wage rate in California is $15.50 for all employers. However, some localities across the Golden State have set their own higher minimum wage rate. For many of these localities, the next increase is set to take effect on July 1, 2023.
For example, in Los Angeles County, the minimum wage increases from $16.04 to $16.78 in the City of Los Angeles and from $15.96 to $16.90 in unincorporated areas. Here is a list of those local cities and counties raising their minimum wage rates:
Following the California Supreme Court’s remand of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Court of Appeal in that same case held that the defendant-employer had not committed “knowing and intentional” violations of the wage statement statute by not including meal period premiums on the wage statements and had not “willfully” paid all wages due at the end of employment by not previously paying meal period premiums that were owed. The Court held that, although the employer did not prevail on its defense that employees in a certified class action were subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements, neither waiting time penalties (capped at 30 days’ of wages at the daily rate of pay for each former employee) nor wage statement penalties (capped at $4,000 per employee) could be imposed against the employer given the good faith dispute that any meal period premiums were owed.
The Los Angeles City Council passed the Fair Work Week Ordinance (“FWWO”) that seeks to “implement enforcement measures for the new fair work week employment standards” for employees in the retail sector. Going into effect April 1, 2023, the FWWO will apply to any person, association, organization, partnership, business trust, limited liability company or corporation in the retail business or trade sector that directly or indirectly exercises control over the wages, hours or conditions of at least 300 employees globally. This includes employees through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary staffing agency.
California plaintiffs’ lawyers typically bring every type of wage-hour claim they can. Increasingly, however, they have focused on one type of claim – wage statement violations.
As we have previously written about, bringing class and representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) alleging that employers did not fully comply with California’s onerous wage statement laws has become a lucrative practice for the plaintiffs’ bar. Given the flurry of litigation, it is beneficial for employers that do business in California to review their wage statements to best ensure compliance.
Employers based outside of California can suffer knockout blows if they enter the ring as employers in California and operate under the mistaken assumption that adherence to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is the same as complying with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders. Below are the main ways (but certainly not the only ways) employers are “caught cold” because they do not receive or apply California wage-and-hour training and learn the hard way that the plaintiffs’ bar will not pull any punches.
Employers with operations both large and small in California are all too familiar with California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), the controversial statute that permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s attorney general and file suit on behalf of other employees to seek to recover penalties for alleged Labor Code violations.
The in terrorem effect of PAGA lawsuits, in which a plaintiff need not satisfy class certification criteria to represent an entire workforce, has led many employers to pay large settlements just to avoid legal fees and the possibility of larger awards, even when the evidence of unlawful conduct is spotty or entirely absent.
Will 2022 be the year that PAGA is repealed?
More than three years after its landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana to determine whether Epic Systems extends to arbitration agreements that include waivers of representative actions brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Employers with operations in California, who have been plagued by the filing of boilerplate PAGA actions, could be heard to breathe a sigh of relief.
On September 27, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Garment Worker Protection Act, which makes California the first state to ban piece rate pay for garment workers, requiring instead that they be paid the minimum hourly wage.
The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual defines piece rate as, “[w]ork paid for according to the number of units turned out … [that] must be based upon an ascertainable figure paid for completing a particular task or making a particular piece of goods.”
It is no secret that the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) has been a cash cow for plaintiffs’ counsel in California.
PAGA allows a single employee (and their counsel) to file suit on behalf of other employees for alleged Labor Code violations, without having to go through the class action mechanism. In other words, a PAGA plaintiff can file suit seeking penalties for hundreds or thousands of employees, yet never need to show that there are common issues susceptible to common proof – or even that their own claims are typical of those of other employees.
As a result, there has been little to prevent plaintiffs and their counsel from filing massive PAGA actions on behalf of all of an employer’s employees, even without having any basis to believe that many those employees suffered any violation at all.
California law generally requires that non-exempt employees be paid 1.5 times their “regular rate of pay” for work performed beyond 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day – and twice their “regular rate of pay” for time worked in excess of 12 hours in day or beyond 8 hours on the seventh day of the workweek.
While “regular rate of pay” is not expressly defined in the California Labor Code, there should be few questions about what that rate is when an employee works at the same rate during the workweek.
But when an employee works at two (or more) different rates of pay during a single ...
We have previously discussed on this page how rounding practices can be problematic. Now, in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court has provided yet another reason for employers in California to review their time rounding practices, as well as their meal period practices.
As we previously discussed, more than eight years ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified many of the general requirements for meal and rest periods under California law. Relevant to the decision in Donohue, the Court held that employees must be ...
In November 2020, California voters approved Proposition 22, removing businesses that operate on-demand rideshare and food delivery platforms from the scope of AB 5, California’s controversial independent contractor law. But before voters approved Proposition 22, the Attorney General of California filed suit against two such businesses, seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and penalties.
As we wrote about here, in August 2020, a California Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting those businesses from treating drivers who use their ...
As we have previously written here, the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California were properly classified as independent contractors, creating a new “ABC” test that has subsequently been codified as AB 5. A significant question left open was whether Dynamex would apply retroactively.
In Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., the California Supreme Court has concluded that Dynamex indeed applies retroactively ...
At the time we are posting this, we are just weeks away from the inauguration of President-Elect Joseph Biden. Although perhaps not at the very top of the list of questions about the forthcoming Biden administration, somewhere on the list has to be this question: “What changes will we see in wage-hour law?”
We don’t have the proverbial crystal ball, but there are a number of issues that the Biden administration may focus on at some point during the next four years, be it through legislation, new rules implemented by the Department of Labor (DOL) or even executive orders. They may ...
Which state’s wage and hour laws apply to Louisiana employers whose employees applied and interviewed for their jobs in Louisiana, acknowledged receipt of employment documents in Louisiana, and resided in Texas, Mississippi, and Ohio while they worked offshore? The answer, according to the California Court of Appeals, is California if the employees are based in California.
In Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, employees worked on a vessel that provided maintenance services to offshore oil platforms located outside California’s ...
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: California voters passed Proposition 22, which will exempt app-based transportation and delivery network companies from the state’s AB5 worker classification law. Attorneys Amy Ramsey and Kevin Sullivan tell us what this means for CA employers and the gig economy more broadly. You can read more here.
As we wrote here just several days ago, Californians were facing the seemingly unimaginable this week– the possibility of living without ride share services for the foreseeable future.
In short, a state court judge issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requiring ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees in purported compliance with AB 5, California’s controversial new law that only permits workers to be classified as independent contractors in most industries if they satisfy an “ABC” test.
After the same judge refused to stay the TRO during the ...
To some, it may feel like it was a lifetime ago when ride share companies did not even exist. In those seemingly long-ago days, people relied upon friends to drive them to or from the airport, or assigned designated drivers for those nights when they attended events where alcohol would be served, or used other methods of transportation to travel the roadways to their various destinations.
Californians may soon be living like that again.
As we shared the other day, a California Superior Court has issued a temporary restraining order requiring ride share companies to treat their drivers as ...
We have written here frequently about California’s controversial AB 5 law, which permits companies to treat workers as independent contractors only if they satisfy a stringent “ABC” test.
The broad statute, unambiguously written to try to force companies to treat gig economy workers as employees, has been the subject of a great deal of debate and litigation, including a state court action filed by the State Attorney General trying to force ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees.
In the action filed by the State Attorney General, the Superior Court judge has ...
Many hospitality businesses, such as restaurants and bars, have found themselves restructuring their daily operations in light of the current global COVID-19 health crisis, and the subsequent federal, state, and local shelter in place orders. For instance, where restaurants and bars once served customers on a dine-in basis, perhaps they are now restricted to take-out only or delivery options, and, as a result, many employers who are still operating in the wake of the pandemic now have very few employees with customer-facing roles.
Because of the necessary changes in daily ...
California law has specific requirements regarding the payment of overtime to employees. An employer’s failure to pay overtime—or failure to pay the correct overtime rate—can result in a litany of unintended Labor Code violations, which, in turn, can lead to enormous liability. Therefore, it is critical that employers understand when overtime is due and how to calculate the overtime rate of pay.
1. When is overtime pay due?
In California, the general overtime requirement is that a nonexempt employee shall receive a premium of at least:
- One and one-half times the employee’s ...
We have written here about the efforts of several gig economy companies like DoorDash to avoid having to conduct – and pay for – thousands of individual arbitrations alleging that their workers had been misclassified.
As we have said before, companies that implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers must be careful what they ask for. By using such agreements, they run the risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations, the cost of which could threaten the companies’ very existence. (In California, we estimate that the arbitration costs ...
California generally requires that, when employees accrue vacation time during their employment, any accrued but unused vacation time must be paid out at the end of employment. But so-called “unlimited” vacation policies have generally been understood to be a potential exception to that rule. Such “unlimited” policies are more accurately referred to as “professional” or “reasonable use” vacation policies, where such policies do not provide for vacation to accrue. Instead, employees under such policies are allowed to take an unspecified amount of paid time ...
It is not unusual for businesses at risk of employee theft to implement security screenings for employees as they exit the employer’s facilities. Such screenings are especially common in industries where small, costly items could easily be slipped into a pocket or handbag – jewelry, smartphones, computer chips, etc.
In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., those security screenings now seem likely to lead to even more litigation wherein employees claim that they were not paid for their time spent waiting to be screened, at least in ...
It’s no secret that many employers have employees sign arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers in the hopes of avoiding the massive wage-hour lawsuits that have become so prevalent in the past two decades.
Nor is it any secret that, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems affirming that such agreements can be valid, even more employers have chosen to use them with their workforces.
But, in discussing with clients whether to implement such agreements, lawyers worth their salt have always told their clients this: “Be careful what you ...
As we recently wrote here, Uber and Postmates (and two of their drivers) to file an eleventh-hour lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of California’s controversial new independent contractor law – known as AB 5 – against them.
In a significant blow to the challenge to the companies’ challenge to the new law, the court has denied Uber and Postmates’ request for a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of AB 5 against them.
In denying the request for a preliminary injunction, the court concluded that Uber and Postmates were not likely to succeed on the merits of ...
As we have written here, the day before California’s controversial AB 5 was set to go into effect, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law as to approximately 70,000 independent truckers.
Subsequently, Judge Benitez granted a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the statute to those truckers.
In reaching his decision, Judge Benitez concluded that, as to independent truckers, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts AB 5.
The preliminary injunction is a significant ...
As we recently wrote here, just hours before California’s controversial AB 5 went into effect, a federal court in San Diego issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin enforcement of the independent contractor statute as to approximately 70,000 independent truckers, many of whom have invested substantial sums of money to purchase their own trucks and to work as “owner-operators.”
Now, days after a state court judge ruled that the statute does not apply to independent truckers, the federal court has extended the TRO while it decides whether to enter a ...
As we recently wrote here, on December 29, 2019, just days before California’s new arbitration statute known as AB 51 was to go into effect, a federal judge in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin enforcement of AB 51.
The new law, which was set to go into effect on January 1, 2020, would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements with employees.
AB 51 would also prohibit arbitration agreements that would require individuals to take affirmative action to be excluded from arbitration, such ...
Following the challenges to AB 5, California’s controversial new independent contractor law, can be a difficult endeavor. Every day seems to bring a new development.
We have written before about the hasty passage of the statute, about a ballot initiative to escape the scope of the law by ride-share and delivery companies, and challenges by independent truckers, freelance journalists and photographers, and ride-share and delivery companies.
While many were focused on whether a federal judge, who had already issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the new ...
As we wrote here recently, organizations representing freelance journalists and photographers filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of California’s controversial independent contractor statute, AB 5, as to them.
While they are not the only ones challenging the new law, their suit is not off to a promising start.
While a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin AB 5 as it applies to independent truckers, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles denied the freelance journalists and photographers’ request for a TRO on January ...
AB 5, California’s hastily passed and controversial independent contractor statute, which codifies the use of an “ABC test,” is set to go into effect on January 1, 2020.
Already, the California Trucking Association has filed suit challenging the statute.
As have freelance writers and photographers.
Now, it’s ride-share and delivery companies’ turn to file suit.
Those companies have already commenced the process to create a ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to exempt ride-share and delivery drivers from the “ABC test.”
Now, on December ...
We have written previously about California’s new statute, referred to as AB 5, which codifies and expands the “ABC test” for independent contractors set forth in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court.
A California ballot initiative that would remove ride-share and delivery drivers from application of the “ABC test” is already underway.
And the California Trucking Association has filed suit challenging the statute.
Now, other organizations have challenged the statute. Specifically, organizations representing freelance writers and photographers have ...
It seems as though there is a minefield that employers must navigate to ensure that they fulfill their wage and hour obligations to their employees. Employers must somehow comply with overlapping and seemingly contradictory federal, state, district, county, and local requirements. The wave of civil actions that are filed against employers alleging wage and hour violations is not slowing. And given the potential financial consequences for non-compliance, illustrated in part by a $102 million award for technical paystub violations, meeting these requirements must be a ...
On November 26, 2019, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) might not apply to Uber drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce while driving passengers to or from international airports.
In his claims before the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (“DLSE”), driver Sangam Patel (“Patel”) seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, meal and rest break premiums, and unpaid business expenses allegedly owed by Uber. Uber petitioned to compel arbitration of Patel’s (“Patel” ...
As businesses throughout the State of California continue to grapple with the potential implications of AB5, a new law designed to make it more difficult for companies to treat workers as independent contractors, the California Trucking Association (“CTA”) is taking legal action.
As we previously wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.
To satisfy the ABC ...
Upsetting what many considered settled precedent, a California Court of Appeal has held that a mandatory service charge may qualify as a “gratuity” under California Labor Code Section 351 that must be distributed to the non-managerial employee(s) who provided the service.
In O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc., No. A148513, plaintiff, a banquet server and bartender, filed a putative class action against their employer for its failure to distribute the entirety of the proceeds of an automatic 21% fee added to every food and beverage banquet bill to the ...
As we wrote here recently, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill known as AB5, which is designed to make it more difficult for companies to treat workers as independent contractors. The new law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, codified and expands the “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.
Now some gig economy businesses are striking back. On October 29, 2019, a coalition of ...
California law has specific requirements regarding the payment of final wages to terminated employees. The failure to comply with those requirements can require an employer to pay an individual up to 30 days of pay – known as “waiting time” penalties. As “waiting time” claims are often pursued in the context of class actions, where plaintiffs seek up to 30 days of pay for each former employee, it is critical that employers understand when final wages must be paid. And that deadline is different depending up whether the company has terminated the employment or the employee has ...
In bringing meal and rest period claims on behalf of their clients, the plaintiffs’ bar has long argued that merely because there was an alleged meal or rest period violation, there were also “derivative” statutory violations entitling their clients to additional penalties. By arguing that an employer is also on the hook for such penalties, plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the potential exposure is greater. And with greater potential exposure, employers will be more inclined to settle – or so the rationale goes.
These purported “derivative” violations have come in ...
There may soon be a fair number of big rig trucks for sale in California, as well as computers, desks and other material investments of persons who determine that they may no longer offer their services as independent contractors and must shut down their small businesses, a potential repercussion of new legislation intended to restrict the use of independent contractor status in the state.
Whether those and other practical consequences of the hurried passage of the new law were considered by the California legislature is unclear.
But the eleventh-hour exemptions that were extended ...
We have frequently written about California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), a unique statute that allows private individuals to file suit seeking “civil penalties” on behalf of themselves and other “aggrieved employees.”
The only remedy available to employees in actions brought under PAGA is a civil penalty. That is significant because civil penalties are unlike the remedies available in conventional lawsuits that are not brought under PAGA; such non-PAGA remedies can include allegedly unpaid overtime, vacation pay, or meal and rest period ...
On December 12, 2018, in Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC, the California Court of Appeal held that if an employer fails to keep accurate records of an employee’s work hours, even “imprecise evidence” by the employee “can provide a sufficient basis for damages.”
In the case, not only did the employer in Furry not keep accurate records of the employee’s time, but only the amount of damages, and not the fact of the underlying violation, was in dispute. Under those circumstances, the Court held that the employee’s “imprecise evidence” of the unpaid hours that he ...
In April 2018, we wrote about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which had clarified the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”).
In Dynamex, the Court adopted the “ABC” test that has been used in some other jurisdictions. Because Dynamex had adopted the “ABC” test for claims arising under IWC wage orders, there was some uncertainty ...
When California employees bring lawsuits alleging minimum wage, overtime, meal period or rest period violations, they typically bring additional claims that are purportedly “derivative” of these substantive claims. One of these derivative claims is for wage statement (i.e., paystub) violations, alleging that because the employee was paid not all wages he or she allegedly earned, the wage statements he or she was provided were not accurate.
The maximum penalty for a wage statement violation under the California Labor Code is $4,000 per employee. With such a significant ...
Featured on Employment Law This Week: The California Supreme Court has clarified the state’s ambiguous “day of rest” provisions.
The provisions state that, with certain exceptions, employers will not cause “employees to work more than six days in seven.” The state’s high court addressed three questions about this law that had been certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court determined that employees are entitled to one day of rest per workweek. So, every Sunday marks the beginning of a new seven-day period. Additionally, the court clarified ...
We have written previously about California’s obscure wage rule pertaining to “suitable seating,” which requires that some employers provide some employees with “suitable seating” in some circumstances if the “nature of the work reasonably permits it” – and exposes employers to significant penalties if they do not do so.
Faced with a dearth of guidance on the obscure rule and with a wave of class actions following the discovery of the rule by the plaintiffs’ bar, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw up its hands last year and asked the California Supreme Court ...
[caption id="attachment_2651" align="alignright" width="113"] Kevin Sullivan[/caption]
On March 31, 2016, the California legislature passed a bill that will gradually increase the state minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022. Governor Jerry Brown is expected to sign the bill on April 4, 2016. This increase will impact employers statewide. Not only will it affect the wages of many non-exempt employees, but it will also result in an increase in the minimum salary paid to employees who qualify for most overtime exemptions.
The bill calls for the minimum wage to increase to $10.50 per ...
It is often said that no employer is immune from a wage-hour lawsuit. That no matter how diligent an employer is about complying with wage-hour laws, there is nothing to prevent an employee from alleging that it did not comply in full with the law, leaving it to the attorneys and the court to sort things out. Perhaps the best evidence that no employer is immune from a wage-hour lawsuit came on Thursday, March 17, 2016. That is the date that history will always reflect that a wage-hour lawsuit was filed against Betty White.
Yes, that Betty White. Ninety-four year old Betty White. Sue Ann ...
More than a few media sources have reported on the March 10, 2016 wage-hour “victory” by a class of Taco Bell employees on meal period claims in a jury trial in the Eastern District of California. A closer review of the case and the jury verdict suggests that those employees may not be celebrating after all -- and that Taco Bell may well be the victor in the case.
The trial involved claims that Taco Bell had not complied with California’s meal and rest period laws. The employees sought meal and rest period premiums and associated penalties for a class of employees that reportedly ...
On June 18, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion in Lemus v. Denny's, Inc. The opinion provides guidance to California employers that require their employees to wear non-slip shoes as a condition of employment.
California law generally requires that an employer must reimburse employees for “necessary expenditures.” However, not all expenses are reimbursable.
In addressing Denny’s requirement that employees wear non-slip black shoes for which they are not reimbursed, the Court noted that, under California law, a “‘restaurant employer must only ...
As if California employers were not already besieged with wage-hour class actions and agency complaints, the state’s controller has now decided to get in on the action.
As The Los Angeles Times reported last week, Controller John Chiang has initiated a new program he calls “Operation Pay-Up” to recover unpaid wages. The article may be found here.
In short, the Controller is using California’s Unclaimed Property Law to attempt to gain restitution of wages believed to be withheld from employees. Any recovered wages that are unclaimed will be transferred to the state treasury ...
By Michael Kun
Much has already been written about last week’s California Supreme Court decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, a greatly anticipated ruling that will have a substantial impact upon wage-hour class actions in California for years to come. Much more will be written about the decision as attorneys digest it, as parties rely on it in litigation, and as the courts attempt to apply it.
In a lengthy and unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse a $15 million trial award in favor of a class of employees who ...
By Michael Kun
If employers with operations in California believed that they could not possibly face more wage claims than they already do, they can think again.
The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) – the state agency that addresses wage claims – has launched a new website designed to notify employees of their rights and explain how to file claims:
http://www.wagetheftisacrime.com/What-We-Do.html#laborCommissioner
The website provides detailed information about the various types of claims individuals may bring, and how to bring ...
By Michael Kun
We have written several times in this blog about California’s unusual – and unusually vague – “suitable seating” law, which requires some employers to provide some employees with suitable seating if the nature of their work reasonably permits it. The previously obscure law has become the subject of numerous class actions in California. And parties and the courts have struggled to interpret a vague law that has little legislative history and even less interpretive case law.
As we wrote most recently in January, the Ninth Circuit essentially threw up its hands ...
We have written frequently in this blog about the great many wage-hour class actions filed against employers doing business in California. Those lawsuits often allege that a class of employees performed work off-the-clock, and that the employees are not only entitled to compensation for that time, but to a slew of penalties that often dwarf the amount of alleged damages.
Depending on the nature of an employer’s business, a plaintiff might allege that employees were not paid for the couple minutes it might take to “boot up” a computer in the morning, or for waiting to ...
By Alka N. Ramchandani & Michael D. Thompson
In recent years, Cal-OSHA has taken an aggressive stance against exposing employees to potential heat illness, often citing employers and proposing significant penalties for failing to provide to employees who work in high heat conditions with adequate drinking water, shade, training, and/or cool-down periods. Furthermore, as noted by the California Supreme Court in Brinker v. Superior Court, monetary remedies for the denial of meal and rest breaks “engendered a wave of wage and hour class action litigation” when added to the ...
By Michael Kun
A California plaintiff who prevails in a wage-hour lawsuit generally may recover his or her attorney’s fees. The same is so for employers -- but only for the next few months.
A new statute will take effect in January 2014 that will change whether and how an employer who prevails in such a case may recover its fees. In a state already overrun with wage-hour lawsuits with questionable merit, that new statute seems to ensure that even more meritless wage-hour lawsuits will be filed by plaintiffs’ counsel who count on the in terrorem effect of those lawsuits to force ...
Michael Kun, chair of EBG’s wage-hour practice group, was recently quoted by California Lawyer magazine regarding the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker v. Superior Court on California wage-hour class actions.
Recently, there have been a number of reports indicating that federal wage-hour lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act increased by 10% in 2012, after smaller increases in the preceding years.
What about California, though?
While I am not aware of anyone who has compiled the figures to determine whether the number of California wage-hour cases has risen or fallen in the past year or so, from where I sit it certainly seems like there has been some decline in the number of wage-hour cases filed in California. And, if not, we can probably expect that in the years to come.
There has been a lack of clarity in California wage and hour law on how compensation must be structured to meet the “salary basis test,” particularly where an exempt employee is paid based on hours worked. However, in Negri v. Koning & Associates, the California Court of Appeal addressed this very issue and concluded that a compensation scheme based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, is not considered a “salary” for the purpose of state overtime laws.
Under California law, an employee exempt from overtime laws must ...
By Michael Kun
We have written previously in this blog about California’s obscure “suitable seating” law, which requires that some employers provide “suitable seating” to some employees.
In short, the plaintiffs’ bar recently discovered a provision buried in California’s Wage Orders requiring employers to provide “suitable seating” to employees when the nature of their jobs would reasonably permit it. Although the provision was written to cover employees who normally worked in a seated position with equipment, machinery or other tools, employers in a ...
By: Kara M. Maciel
Earlier this month, we released our Wage and Hour Division Investigation Checklist for employers and have received a lot of great feedback with additional questions. Following up on that feedback, we will be regularly posting FAQs as a regular feature of our Wage & Hour Defense Blog.
In this post, we address a common issue that many employers are facing in light of increased government enforcement at the state and federal level from the Department of Labor.
QUESTION: “I am aware that my industry is being targeted by the DOL for audits and several of my ...
By Michael Kun
As we have written before in this space, the latest wave of class actions in California is one alleging that employers have not complied with obscure requirements requiring the provision of “suitable seating” to employees – and that employees are entitled to significant penalties as a result.
The “suitable seating” provisions are buried so deep in Wage Orders that most plaintiffs’ attorneys were not even aware of them until recently. Importantly, they do not require all employers to provide seats to all employees. Instead, they provide that employers ...
By Michael Kun
Employers with operations in California have become aware in recent years of an obscure provision in California Wage Orders that requires “suitable seating” for some employees. Not surprisingly, many became aware of this provision through the great many class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs’ counsel who also just discovered the provision. The law on this issue is scant. However, at least two pending cases should clarify whether and when employers must provide seats – a case against Bank of America that is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of ...
By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen
Following up on the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in See’s Candy v. Superior Court, a California federal court has now dismissed a time-rounding class action against H.J. Heinz Company. And, once again, the court has relied upon the decision in our case Alonzo v. Maximus
This, of course, is more good news for employers with operations in California. Between See’s Candy and Maximus, it will be exceedingly hard for plaintiffs to proceed with time-rounding class actions against employers who have even-handed time-rounding policies ...
By Frederick Dawkins and Douglas Weiner
Earlier this month, at the ABA Labor and Employment Law Conference, Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith reaffirmed that investigating independent contractors as misclassified remains a top priority of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) enforcement initiatives. The DOL will continue to work with other federal and state agencies, including the IRS, to share information and jointly investigate claims of worker misclassification. The joint enforcement effort is certainly driven by, among other things, an interest in ...
By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen
Agreeing with the recent federal district court opinion in our case Alonzo v. MAXIMUS, Inc., 832 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1126 (2011), the California Court of Appeals has confirmed in a case against See’s Candy that California employers may round employees’ time entries so long as the employer’s rounding policy does not consistently result in a failure to pay employees for time worked.
In Alonzo, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client MAXIMUS, Inc. on the plaintiffs’ time rounding claims. The Alonzo Court explained that ...
By: Marisa Ratinoff
A federal judge takes on California's day of rest statutes and finds Nordstrom did not violate the California Labor Code where the plaintiffs voluntarily worked more then six days in a row. In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the Central District Court played it as expected by denying the claims of two former Nordstrom employees holding that while an employer may not force an employee to work more than six consecutive days pursuant to Labor Code Sections 551 and 552, the employer will not be found liable where the employee chooses to waive his or her day of rest. Continuing the ...
By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen
To the surprise of few, the California Supreme Court has decided to review the Court of Appeal’s decision enforcing a class action waiver in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC.
We wrote in detail about that decision on this blog earlier this year.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on the April 2011 United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. Whether the California Supreme Court will follow Concepcion or attempt to distinguish it is impossible to predict. Unfortunately ...
By: Adam C. Abrahms
Last week Assembly Bill 889 cleared a California State Senate Committee, advancing it one step closer to becoming state law. The bill, authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D – San Francisco), seeks to extend most of California’s strict wage and hour regulations to domestic employees working in private homes. While the bill excludes babysitters under the age of 18, it extends California wage and hour protections to babysitters over the age of 18 as well as any other housekeeper, nanny, caregiver or other domestic worker.
Should the bill become law individual ...
Earlier this year, we were pleased to introduce our free wage-hour app for iPhones and iPads. The app puts federal wage-hour law, as well as that for many states, at users’ fingertips.
We have recently added New Jersey law to the app, as well as updated it to reflect changes in California law following the long awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision clarifying meal and rest period laws.
The app may be found here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id1320249735
By Amy Traub, Michael Kun, and Anna Kolontyrsky
As employers know, not only are FLSA collective actions more prevalent than ever, but they can be costly to defend or resolve. In an attempt to bring quick closure to such cases, somedefendants have attempted to settle such claims with the individual plaintiff alone through a Rule 68 offer of judgment before a class has been conditionally certified.
This strategy has come under attack. And the United States Supreme Court will now determine whether it is permissible.
The United States Supreme Court has elected to review a Third Circuit ...
By Adam Abrahms
Outside of California, employers frequently enter into agreements with non-exempt salaried employees that provide for a set weekly salary that includes overtime for a specific number of hours and is based on a defined regular rate of pay. For example, an employer may agree to pay an employee as salary of $950 a week for 45 hours of work resulting in the employee being paid $20/hour for the first 40 hours and time and half ($30) for the overtime hours. These agreements typically provide that if an employee works more than the established hours, the employee would be paid ...
By Michael Kun
Yesterday, only weeks after its long-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision, the California Supreme Court issued another important ruling on California meal and rest period laws.
In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that neither party may recover attorney’s fees on claims involving meal and rest periods. The Court analyzed the legislative history of the meal and rest period provisions and concluded, “We believe the most plausible inference to be drawn from history is that the Legislature intended [meal and rest period] claims to ...
Last year, California passed the Wage Theft Prevention Act (AB 469) which amended several existing Labor Code sections and added several new ones. Most notably, in addition to criminalizing certain wages payment violations, the statute created a new mandate for California employers to provide each new employee a written notice upon hire containing individual information, including their regular rate of pay, overtime rates, and regular pay day. The law also required the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to prepare a template of the ...
By: Michael Kun
This morning, the California Supreme Court has just issued its long-awaited decision in the Brinker case regarding meal and period requirements. It is largely, but not entirely, a victory for employers. A copy of the decision is here.
A few highlights of the decision:
On rest periods, the Court confirmed the certification of a rest period class because Brinker’s written policy arguably did not comply with the law as to the second rest period in a day. In so doing, it clarified when employees are entitled to rest periods:
· Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for ...
By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen
Plaintiffs seeking to bring state law wage-hour class actions against employers in the trucking industry have run into a significant road block in California. For the second time in a year, a United States District Court has held that claims based on California’s meal and rest period laws are preempted by federal law.
In Esquivel et al. v. Performance Food Group Inc., the plaintiffs claimed the defendant scheduled their delivery routes such that the plaintiffs were unable to take duty-free meal periods. The defendant argued that the Federal Aviation ...
By Michael Kun
Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division and the California Secretary of Labor announced that they were teaming up to crack down on employers who classify workers as independent contractors. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20120257.htm
The announcement that the two groups would work together on such an initiative should not come as much of a surprise to employers. Shortly after Hilda Solis took office as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, the Wage and Hour Division announced that it would be focusing on this issue. And California has ...
by Dena L. Narbaitz and Marisa S. Ratinoff
While everyone awaits the California Supreme Court's ruling in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) – which is expected sometime in early 2012 and will determine the scope of an employer's meal and rest period obligations – employers must not lose sight of other important developments in California employment law. Below are brief summaries of some of the legislative enactments in California that will affect employers. Unless otherwise noted, these laws will take effect on January 1, 2012.
By Michael Kun
On January 1, 2012, the minimum wage for employees working in San Francisco will rise to $10.24 per hour.
This is, to our knowledge, the first time the minimum wage in any U.S. city has ever exceeded $10 per hour.
Employers with employees in San Francisco will need to make sure that they make appropriate adjustments to their payroll systems and practices to account for the increase.
by Michael S. Kun, Eric A. Cook, and Jennifer A. Goldman
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two employment-related bills into law, raising the stakes for employers doing business in California. The two laws, which increase the penalties for employers that wrongly classify employees as independent contractors or engage in "wage theft," both go into effect on January 1, 2012.
by Michael Kun
As we have mentioned previously on thisblog, the latest wave of wage-hour class actions to hit California employers is based on a claim that employees were not provided "suitable seating" under an obscure provision of California's Wage Orders. To avoid having these cases removed to federal court,and to avoid the burden of establishing the elements for class certification, many plaintiffs' counsel have taken to filing these lawsuits not as class actions, but as representative actions under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
PAGA -- sometimes ...
By Michael Kun
It appears that oral argument before the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court will be broadcast live on-line on the California Channel on November 8, 2011 at 9 a.m. While it is unlikely this will inspire families to gather around their computers as they gathered around their radios to listen to breaking news decades ago, more than a few employers with operations in California may want to listen to this oral argument on a critical issue that affects all such employers – whether employee meal and rest breaks must be “ensured” or merely ...
By Michael Kun
Some were beginning to wonder whether it would ever happen. After more than two years, the California Supreme Court has announced a hearing date in the much-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court case -- November 8, 2011.
Unless the Court takes a detour, California employers should finally know the answer to a question that has long driven California's billion dollar wage-hour class action industry -- must an employer "ensure" that employers take meal and rest periods, or are they only required to make them "available" to employees.
Should the Supreme Court rule that ...
By Michael Kun
Understandably, employers have celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ---, --- S.Ct. ---, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011) and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ---, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011). At the very least, those cases would seem to suggest that the wage-hour class actions and collective actions that have besieged employers might be curtailed significantly, along with the costly settlements triggered by the in terrorem effect of such lawsuits.
California employers can stop celebrating, or at least tone down ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Employees Not in the Transportation Industry Can Be Exempted From Arbitration Under the FAA
- U.S. Department of Labor Issues Final Overtime Rule Raising Salary Thresholds
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on New York Meal and Rest Periods
- D.C. Expands Coverage of Minimum Wage Law
- Epstein Becker Green’s Free Wage-Hour App Includes Updates on New 2024 Laws