(323) 652-9451 - LA(628) 230-6920 - SFO
(805) 845-1752 - SBA
(323) 652-9451 - LA|
In a favorable opinion for California employers, the US Supreme Court, in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, held employees may be compelled to submit individual Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims to binding arbitration (thereby waiving their rights to a jury trial).
By way of background, PAGA permits an “aggrieved” employee who allegedly had their Labor Code rights violated, to step into the shoes of the state Labor Commissioner and enforce certain violations of California labor law. PAGA allows for civil penalties against employers on behalf of the state. Further, only an individual employee brings a claim under PAGA, while other allegedly “aggrieved” employees do not participate in the lawsuit. The default PAGA civil penalty is $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per pay period for subsequent violations.
Prior to Viking River Cruises, PAGA claims could not be compelled into arbitration. In those cases in which an employee was bound by an arbitration agreement, the lawsuit would be split, with non-PAGA claims submitted to arbitration first and PAGA claims decided after the arbitration was completed, essentially subjecting the employer to multiple trials and no benefit of arbitration of PAGA claims.
A second important thrust of Viking River Cruises is that, because an employee bound to arbitrate her PAGA claims lacks standing to prosecute claims on behalf of other similarly “aggrieved” employees, the remaining PAGA claims must be dismissed upon submission of the case to arbitration.
It is important to remember that, based on the current status of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 51, it remains unclear whether an employer can require a new hire to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will address this issue. At this time, it is safest to make an agreement to arbitrate employment claims voluntary.
Additionally, it is critical to understand both the costs and benefits of binding arbitration of employment claims in California, as employers are required to shoulder 100% of the arbitration fees, which can be quite substantial. Employers contemplating adopting an arbitration policy or who wish to fully understand the costs vs. benefits of employment arbitration, should contact us for further information.
|
|
|
|
Employers with just five (5) W-2 employees must be prepared for the June 30, 2022 deadline to offer a qualified retirement savings plan (including a 401(a), 401(k), 403(a), 403(b), 408(k), 408(p), or 457(b)) to their employees.
One option for employers that do not already have a plan in place is to register with the California state offered Calsavers program (formerly known as Secure Choice). Information about this plan is available here.
If employers fail to offer a plan by the deadline, they may receive a notice of noncompliance and face steep fines. A penalty of $250 per eligible employee if noncompliance extends 90 days or more after the notice. If found to be in non-compliance 180 days or more after the notice, the employer is responsible for an additional penalty of $500 per eligible employee.
|
|
California employers in several cities and counties must be prepared for July 1, 2022 minimum wage increases. While most California localities previously imposed a different minimum wage for employers with more or less than 26 employees, all municipalities listed below, except West Hollywood, will now impose the same minimum wage regardless of size. Here is a quick list of localities where the minimum wage will climb effective July 1st:
California employers must also be mindful of the likelihood that the statewide minimum wage may climb faster than expected due to rising inflation. In 2017, California initiated an annual planned increase of the statewide minimum wage, with all employers, regardless of size, scheduled to reach $15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2023.
However, the minimum wage ordinance included an exception triggering an accelerated increase if the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) exceeds 7 percent over a specified period of time. Based on current projections, the CPI-W will have risen by 7.6 percent in the period ending in July. On May 12, 2022, when Governor Gavin Newsom announced his proposal for a state inflation relief package, he also announced that California’s minimum wage is now projected to increase to $15.50 per hour, rather than $15.00 per hour, on January 1, 2023, for all businesses regardless of size. Of course, a business operating in any of the listed municipalities must ensure compliance with the higher local minimum wage.
Employers with exempt employees must remember that certain exempt employees must receive a salary of at least twice the state minimum wage (the “Salary Threshold”), in addition to meeting the general duties and other requirements. Whenever the state minimum wage increases, this impacts the Salary Threshold and may cause exempt employees to suddenly become improperly classified. To be clear, the Salary Threshold is tied to the California state minimum wage, not any city or county minimum wage ordinance.
|
|
We are frequently surprised that many businesses fail to grasp and correctly apply the criteria for determining when an employee can be classified as Exempt from overtime and/or meal and rest break laws. Employers often assume, based on a worker’s position in the organization, or because s/he is paid a salary, that s/he is automatically Exempt.
We are surprised, not because the standards for determination of Exempt status are straightforward and easy to apply (Sometimes they are not!), but because the consequences of misclassifying an employee as Exempt can be major, including administrative claims or civil lawsuits for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, failure to provide rest/meal breaks, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties and related damages (including the employee’s attorney’s fees). Have we got your attention?
The Labor Commissioner applies two (2) standards to determine when an employee can be properly classified as Exempt: (1) the Duties Test; and (2) the Salary Threshold. Exempt employees must fit within one of the following limited list of categories: Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer/Software, Outside Sales, state or county employees, and a few others.
The Duties Test examines the work performed by the employee during the workweek. For example, the Executive Exemption is limited to an employee whose “duties and responsibilities involve the management of the enterprise or a department or subdivision of the enterprise, who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees, and who has authority to hire or fire other employees or whose views as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given weight, and who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment. There is a different Duties Test for each category of Exempt employee.
The Salary Threshold requires one exempt under the Executive Exemption to earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. Full-time employment means 40 hours per week. There is a similar Salary Threshold for most other Exempt categories.
Depending on the circumstances, these tests may be easy or difficult to apply regarding a given employee. Additionally, there are traps for unwary with regard to the Salary Threshold where the worker, for example, meets the Salary Threshold most weeks, but falls below it on a given week.
Employers looking to follow best practices should have their Exempt classification decisions reviewed by employment law counsel or, at minimum, someone with significant Human Resources experience, such as an HR Consultant or a member of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) or its affiliate, Professionals in Human Resources Association (PIHRA).
|
|
|
|
A California appellate court recently affirmed a trial court victory on behalf of Ralphs Grocery Co., in a case alleging the grocer should have provided suitable seating to its cashiers.
By way of background, most California Industrial Wage (IWC) orders require employers to provide workers “suitable seating” under two circumstances: (1) when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats; and (2) when an employee is not actively engaged in duties that require standing, or during “lulls in operation.”
Former Ralphs employee Jill LaFace sued Ralphs, arguing that cashiers could reasonably perform their cashiering duties while seated and that the company was also obligated to provide seats for cashiers to use during “lulls in operation.” Following a nonjury trial, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia Nieto held that the nature of LaFace’s work did not permit sitting because “Ralphs cashiers continuously perform work that should or even must be performed while standing.” She also held that Ralphs had no obligation to provide seating for use during “lulls in operation” because the cashiers were expected to remain busy between customers.
LaFace appealed. The appellate court ruled that an employer does not have to provide seating where the employer expects employees to keep busy and not stand, which functionally means there is no “lull” in duties. The court also held that employees bringing suitable seating claims and other claims for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) are not entitled to a jury trial, which may also be seen as a victory for California employers.
For employers of workers where there is some question whether seating may be required, this case highlights the need for an established, clearly comunicated policy. Either employees may be permitted to sit while performing their job or during lulls, in which case suitable seating should be provided, or written policies communicated to workers should make it clear that employees are expected to remain busy, even during lulls in operation.
|
|
|
|
On February 10, 2022, the Senate passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual harassment Act of 2021 (HR. 4445). When signed by President Biden (expected any day), it will amend the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to bar forced pre-dispute arbitration of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment claims. The law will also bar waivers by employees of the right to bring such claims on a class basis.
The new law also requires that a court—not an arbitrator—decide whether a claim constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault, even if the arbitration agreement requires such decision be made by the arbitrator.
In light of this development, we suggest employers who require employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements include a “carve-out” for claims of workplace sexual assault or harassment. At a minimum, any arbitration agreement should contain a carve-out for disputes that are barred by applicable federal or state law.
|
|
|
|
On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 114 which resurrects COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (the “SPSL”) for 2022.
This version of SPSL took effect February 19, 2022, however, it applies retroactively to January 1, 2022. It expires September 30, 2022. Employers with more than 25 employees are covered.
The following are covered reasons for using SPSL:
SPSL benefits:
Additional Facts About SPSL:
|
Just before Christmas, a California appeals court gave the green light to a wrongful death lawsuit claiming that an employee brought Covid-19 home from work and infected a family member, who subsequently died.
The employer, See’s Candy, had asked the courts to shut the case down because the claim falls under the exclusive remedy of the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). Under the WCA, employees who suffer illness from the workplace are entitled to compensation without needing to sue the employer in court. Since early in the Covid-19 pandemic, it has been clear that employees who link their own Covid-19 infection to their job get WCA benefits.
The courts refused to dismiss the case, reasoning that WCA benefits do not extend to injuries or illness by non-employees, and so they are not prohibited from pursuing the employer in civil court.
Importantly, the family still faces several hurdles, including establishing that the employer owed a “duty of care”* to the employee’s relative (a question not answered in the See’s Candy opinion), that the employer breached such a “duty of care,” and, perhaps most difficult, that the employer was the source of the deceased relative’s infection.
Employers’ best takeaway from this case is to ensure your practices align with all state and federal government and OSHA mandates (such as those discussed above). This will not only reduce the spread of infection, but may be valuable evidence, if you are confronted with such a case, to prove you did not act unreasonably.
*Deepest apologies for the unavoidable legalese.
Senate Bill (SB) 331, signed into law, expands that prohibition to include allegations of other acts of workplace harassment or discrimination that are not based on sex. The law applies to agreements signed on or after January 1, 2022.
| A California appellate court has issued an opinion, All of Us or None v. Hamrick, which will almost certainly delay the process of obtaining criminal background checks for employers. Criminal background searches are a legal requirement for employers in many industries.Companies performing background checks rely, in part, on searches of criminal case indexes using date of birth and driver’s license number.
In All of Us or None v. Hamrick, a civil rights organization supporting ex-offenders sued the Riverside Superior Court claiming it permitted searches using dates of birth and driver’s license numbers, in violation of California Rule of Court, Rule 2.507. The trial court threw the case out. But the California Court of Appeal reversed, emphasizing the privacy interests of ex-offenders. While the case was brought against the Riverside Court, it will impact searches of most courts because CRC Rule 2.507 is a statewide law. |
