(323) 652-9451(805) 845-1752
(323) 652-9451The California Family Rights Act provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave for eligible employees to care for themselves and a wide variety of family members. More specifically, under the current CFRA:
Most importantly, SB 1383 expands the range of covered employers under the CFRA to employers with just 5 or more employees. Previously, a covered employer had to have at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of the workplace where the leave-seeking employee worked.
The new law also expands the range of family members for whose care CFRA leave may be taken. Effective January 1st, employees may take CFRA leave to care for grandparents, grandchildren and siblings.
If both parents work for the same employer, SB 1383 eliminates the current requirement that the parents split the 12-week leave time. Effective January 1st, each employee-parent will be entitled to his/her own 12-week leave.
Finally, SB 1383 makes it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period due to a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of an employee’s spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces of the United States.
With just 24 days before SB 1383 takes effect, employers that were not previously covered under the CFRA should take immediate steps to become familiar with the Act and revise their employee handbook and policies to reflect the change. Employers already covered by CFRA should understand the changes and revise their handbook and policies accordingly.
Employers seeking to better understand this new law should contact their employment law professional.
On September 17, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law two critical pieces of legislation. Assembly Bill (AB) 685, which imposes certain notification obligations on employers when one or more employees test positive for COVID-19, takes effect January 1, 2021. Senate Bill (SB) 1159 expands employees’ rights to workers’ compensation benefits and also imposes a significant new reporting deadline when an employee tests positive for COVID-19. SB 1159 takes effect immediately.
AB 685 Notice Requirements
Assembly Bill 685 imposes important notification requirements when employers discover that one or more employees have been diagnosed with COVID-19. More specifically, the new law sets forth the following notice requirements:
Within one (1) business day of a “potential exposure” based on a confirmed case of COVID-19 in a workplace, an employer must:
• Provide written notice to all employees, employers of subcontracted employees and employee representatives, including unions who were at the worksite within the infectious period who may have been exposed o COVID-19.
• Provide written notice to employees and/or their representatives regarding COVID-19-related benefits that employees may receive, including workers’ compensation benefits, COVID leave, paid sick leave and the employer’s anti-discrimination, anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies.
• Provide notice to employees regard the employer’s disinfection protocols and safety plan.
Written notice under the law may be made by personal delivery, text message and/or email, provided that it can be reasonably anticipated to be received within one (1) business day. It must also be in English and the language understood by the majority of employees.
AB 685 also requires employers who have a sufficient number of COVID-19 positive cases that meet the definition of a COVID-19 outbreak (as defined by the Cal. State Dept. of Health), to report certain information to the employer’s local health agency within forty-eight (48) hours of learning of the outbreak.
The requirements of AB 685 do not apply when the employee(s) who test positive for COVID-19 work remotely. Again, AB 685 takes effect January 1, 2021.
SB 1159 – Disputable Presumption
SB 1159 has two important components related to employees who test positive for COVID-19. First, it creates a “disputable presumption” that an illness or death resulting from COVID-19 arose out of and in the course and scope of employment for workers’ compensation purposes. This presumption covers cases in which the worker tested positive from July 6, 2020 through January 1, 2023. Thereafter, the presumption will no longer apply.
In order for the presumption to apply: (1) the positive test for COVID-19 must occur within 14 days after a day that the employee worked at the employer’s place of employment; (2) the day of work was on or after July 6, 2020; and (3) the positive test must have occurred during a period of an outbreak at the employee’s place of employment.
Important for this presumption, an “outbreak” exists if, within 14 days, one of the following occurs at the place of employment: (1) if the employer has <100 employees at a specific site, 4 employees test positive for COVID-19; (2) if the employer has >100 employees, 4% of the employees test positive for COVID-19; (3) a specific place of employment is ordered to close by a local public health department, the State Dept. of Public Health, Div. of Occupational Safety and Health or a school superintendent due to a risk of infection with COVID-19.
SB 1159 – Reporting Requirements
SB 1159 also creates new reporting requirements. When an employer knows or reasonably should know that an employee has tested positive for COVID-19, the employer must report that fact to its workers’ compensation claims administrator within three (3) business days, via email or fax.
The information to be reported includes: (1) that an employee has tested positive (no personally identifiable information regarding the employee, unless he/she asserts the infection is work-related or has filed a claim); (2) the date the employee tested positive; (3) the address of the specific place of work during the 14-day period preceding the positive test; and (4) the highest number of employees who reported to work at the employee’s specific place of employment in the 45-day period preceding the last day the employee worked at each specific place of employment.
What Employers Should Do Now
Employers should immediately become familiar with these new requirements. Employers with any questions about these new laws should contact their employment law professional.
The Law Offices of Alex Craigie helps employers throughout California prevent, address and resolve employment disputes in a logical and cost-effective manner. Reach us at (323) 652-9451, (805) 845-1752 or at [email protected]
I believe the answer is YES. Cities and Counties throughout California are increasingly ordering or recommending the use of non-medical masks or “cloth face coverings” to help stem the spread of COVID-19. This triggers two obligations. First, Cal/OSHA requires California employers to provide employees with all necessary safety equipment. Second, federal and state laws require employers to reimburse employees for all reasonably incurred business expenses. Whether an employer provides the protective gear or employees procure them independently but seek reimbursement, employers should be prepared to shoulder this responsibility.
Alex Craigie has been named a Southern California Super Lawyer in the area of Employment Litigation: Defense. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. This selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The final published list represents no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill (AB 51) intended to prohibit employers from requiring employees to sign agreements that they will submit claims arising from their employment to binding arbitration (as opposed to resolution of the dispute in the civil court system, by judge or jury). The law takes effect January 1, 2020. The new law, if ultimately enforced, has important implications for any employer that requires employees to sign arbitration agreements.
What the Law Says
Assembly Bill 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code. While it was packaged as a “sexual harassment” bill, AB 51 covers virtually any claim arising from the employment relationship (excluding workers’ compensation claims, which are not arbitrable in any event). The new law:
Why the New Law Might Ultimately Be Held Unenforceable
Most experts expect to see legal challenges to the new law, primarily on the grounds that it conflicts and is preempted by the FAA, which dates from 1925 and exists to further arbitration in cases involving interstate commerce. Individual state laws that “stand[] as an obstacle to” arbitration have been repeatedly struck down by the United States Supreme Court as preempted by the FAA. Whether the new law will survive these challenges is presently unclear.
What Employers Should Do
Given the uncertainty surrounding AB 51, it is important that employers who currently (or intend to) require workers to sign arbitration agreements take steps before the end of 2019 to ensure compliance if the law is ultimately enforced. No employer should want to be a “test case.”
Because the law specifically excludes FAA-governed agreements, certain employers (depending on industry) may still be able to require employees to sign an agreement to submit employment disputes to arbitration under the FAA (stating the basis for FAA jurisdiction).
Alternatively, employers could continue to include arbitration provisions, but exclude administrative charges that employees may file with the DFEH, EEOC, NLRB, DOL or the California Labor Commissioner from arbitration. Unfortunately, these exceptions would essentially remove the protections afforded by arbitration in the first place.
As the law in this area remains fluid, employers should not hesitate to consult with their qualified employment law professionals to ensure they remain compliant with all state and federal employment laws, including AB 51.
The Law Offices of Alex Craigie helps employers throughout California prevent, address and resolve employment disputes in a logical and cost-effective manner. Reach us at (323) 652-9451, (805) 845-1752 or at [email protected].
Certain California cities and counties are increasing the minimum hourly wage for nonexempt employees effective July 1st! Please see the list below to determine if your business or California-situated employees are affected. Many regulations differentiate between businesses with 25 or fewer employees and those with 26 or more employees.
Location 25 or fewer employees 26 or more employees
California statewide
(no change) $11.00 $12.00
Los Angeles city $13.25 $14.25
Los Angeles county $13.25 $14.25
Malibu city $13.25 $14.25
Pasadena city $13.25 $14.25
San Diego (no change) $12.00 $12.00
San Francisco $15.59 $15.59
Santa Monica $13.25 $14.25
Palo Alto $15.00 $15.00
What Employers Should Do
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, clarified the proper test for California companies to apply before treating any worker as an independent contractor. This post discusses this important new holding.
Background on “Employee” vs. “Independent Contractor”
For some businesses and their workers, the question whether the worker is properly classified as an “employee” or an “independent contractor” is both important and challenging. For employees, the hiring business pays federal Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and state employment taxes, provides worker’s compensation insurance and must comply with numerous state and federal statutes and regulations governing the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. The worker obtains the protection of the applicable labor laws and regulations, including protections against unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
If, on the other hand, a worker should properly be classified as an independent contractor, the business avoids those costs and responsibilities, the worker obtains none of the numerous labor law benefits, and the public may be required in some circumstances to assume additional financial burdens with respect to such workers and their families.
The proper classification analysis is, in the first instance, up to the hiring business. The decision is often made without the assistance of counsel and, where the classification lands on independent contractor, is frequently wrong. The consequences may not become known for months or even years. However, disgruntled employees misclassified as independent contractors often ultimately bring claims or suits under wage-hour laws. Worse, the California Employment Development Department (EDD), which administers unemployment insurance claims, can audit a business suspected of widespread misclassification and, in extreme instances, impound funds without notice to the business. Therefore, it is critical before a business classifies any worker as an independent contractor that it ensures the classification is accurate.
The DynamexCase and the ABC Test
Since 1989, California courts were historically guided in deciding the independent contractor question by “the seminal California decision on the subject,” S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations. This case provided employers, their lawyers, the state and the courts with several non-exclusive factors to consider in the employee/independent contractor analysis.
In the Dynamexlawsuit, two delivery drivers sued the company on behalf of themselves and similarly situated workers claiming that the company misclassified its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The California Supreme Court expressed the view that the multi-factor test previously announced in the S.G. Borellocase “makes it difficult for both hiring businesses and workers to determine in advance how a particular category of workers will be classified.” Therefore, the Supreme Court adopted a test previously adopted by some other courts known as the “ABC Test.”
Under the ABC Test, a worker is presumed to be an employee, unless the worker:
What Should Employers Do
If anything, the stakes get higher all the time for companies that misclassify workers as independent contractors. Claims brought before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), as well as civil lawsuits, including class action and private attorney general (PAGA) lawsuits are on the rise.
Before classifying one or a class of workers as independent contractors, companies should be sure they meet the applicable criteria. Additionally, the role of workers currently classified as independent contractors should be evaluated under the ABC Test. Given the complexity of this area of employment law, employers should consider working with their employment counsel to make sure they are in compliance.
Employers must begin using a new version of the Form I-9 issued by the U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services (USCIS) no later than September 18, 2017 or face potentially large fines. The Form I-9 is the document employers must use to verify the identity of new hires to ensure they are authorized to work in the United States.
What’s Different?
The changes to the Form are subtle. There are changes to the instructions and the list of documents approved to verify eligibility. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) was added as a List C document, and all the certifications of report of birth issued by the State Department (Form FS-545, Form DS-1350, and Form FS-240) have been combined.
The List C documents have been renumbered, except for the Social Security Card. All changes are described in detail in the newly revised Handbook for Employers: Guidance for Completing Form I-9 (M-274).
Storage and Retention Rules
Employers must be able to present the Forms to government officials for inspection within 3 business days of a request. Employers who choose to keep paper copies of the documents their employees present may store them with the employee’s Form I-9 or with the employees’ records. However, the USCIS recommends that employers keep Form I-9 separate from personnel records to facilitate an inspection request.
Employers are required to retain an employee’s Form I-9 until the later of (1) the date the employee began work for pay + 3 years, or (2) the date employment was terminated + 1 year.
Potential Penalties for Failure to Follow Form I-9 Rules
In 2016, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced increases for Form I-9 violations. For example, the minimum and maximum fines for simple Form I-9 violations increased to $216 and $2,156, respectively. Additionally, minimum and maximum fines for first offenses of Unlawful Employment of Unauthorized Workers has increased to $539 and $4,313 per worker, respectively.
Employers with lingering questions about the new Form I-9 should contact their employment counsel.
Each new year brings challenges for employers and their Human Resources management, as a slew of new laws take effect, creating new traps for the unwary. 2016 is no exception. Here is a list of four new laws (or amendments) that can impact virtually every California employer.
The New Minimum Wage is $10.00
At first, this doesn’t seem like real news, as almost everyone has known the California minimum wage has been climbing since 2014. The information important to many employers, however, is the role the enhanced minimum wage plays in classification of salaried exempt vs. non-exempt employees.
Remember that an exempt employee in California must be paid a salary that is no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. Accordingly, as the state minimum wage increases from $9.00 to $10.00 per hour, the minimum annual salary for an exempt employee increases from $37,440 to $41,600. What you should do: Review compensation for all salaried exempt employees to ensure it equates to at least $41,600 annually.
Changes to Piece-Rate Compensation Requirements
Are some or all of your employees paid according to a piece-rate method? A business school definition of piece-rate compensation is: A wage determination system in which the employee is paid for each unit of production at a fixed rate. It is common in the automotive repair and garment industries, among others.
Assembly Bill 1513 added section 226.2 to the California Labor Code. It requires employers to pay piece-rate employees a separate hourly wage for “nonproductive” time, as well as “rest and recovery” periods. These hours and pay must be separately itemized on employees’ paystubs.
An additional challenge created by the new law relates to determination of the correct rate of pay. For “rest and recovery” breaks, employees must be paid the greater of (1) the minimum wage, or (2) the employee’s average hourly wage for all time worked (exclusive of break time) during the work week. For “nonproductive” time, the employee must receive at least minimum wage. What you should do: If you have employees paid on a piece-rate basis, make sure you understand and comply with the above. If not, contact your employment lawyer to get in compliance.
California Fair Pay Act
Senate Bill 358, amends California Labor Code Section 1197.5, which prohibits an employer from paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work.” Prior to the amendment, an employee seeking to prove unequal pay had to demonstrate that he or she was not being paid at the same rate as someone of the opposite sex at the same establishment for “equal work.” As amended, an employee need only show he or she is not being paid at the same rate for “substantially similar work” as measured by a composite of skill, effort and responsibility performed under similar working conditions.
Additionally, the amended law makes it unlawful for employers to prohibit employees from disclosing their wages to others, discussing their wages or inquiring about the wages of another employee. It also creates a new private cause of action whereby an employee may bring suit in court seeking reinstatement and reimbursement for discrimination or retaliation. What you should do: Audit your compensation structure to ensure both genders are paid equally for substantially similar work. Where changes are required, you may only increase the underpaid employee. Involve your employment lawyer if you need clarification or help.
Requesting Reasonable Accommodations is a Protected Activity
Assembly Bill 987 amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to expand the protections for employees who request a reasonable accommodation for disabilities or religious beliefs, regardless whether the request is granted. This means that, once an employee has requested a reasonable accommodation for a disability or religious belief, the employer may not take an adverse employment action (i.e., discipline, reduction in hours or pay, termination) in retaliation for the accommodation request. What you should do: Be sensitive to an employee’s request for accommodation, even if s/he does not use the term “reasonable accommodation.” If an employee tells you (or you perceive) s/he is disabled or has a particular religious belief/preference that requires accommodation, take the situation seriously. It may be a good idea to consult with your employment counsel.
Conclusion
Employers should remain mindful of these changes as we embark upon a satisfying and, hopefully, productive new year!
The new federal budget signed into law on November 2, 2015, requires the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to increase its penalties for the first time since 1990.
What is OSHA and why is this important?
OSHA is a federal agency (part of the Department of Labor) that ensures safe and healthy working conditions for Americans by enforcing standards and providing workplace safety training. OSHA is empowered to enforce its regulations by imposing penalties that most employers feel are already steep.
From 1990 through 2015, OSHA was one of only three federal agencies that were exempt from a law requiring such agencies to raise fines to keep pace with inflation. A section of the 2015 budget bill–the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (no that’s not a typo!)–eliminated this exemption.
The budget bill further requires OSHA to make a one-time “catch-up” increase, which cannot exceed the inflation rate from 1990 through 2015 as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Based on the recent CPI, the maximum increase is expected to be in the range of 75-80%. Further, given consistent comments by OSHA leadership about the benefits of imposing stiffer regulatory punishments, it is believed that OSHA will implement most, if not all, of the increase.
To illustrate the impact of this increase, an 80% increase in the current schedule of maximum penalties would result in the following fines:
Cal/OSHA
California is among several states that have a State Plan: an OSHA-approved job safety and health program that is operated by an individual state instead of federal OSHA. Federal OSHA still provides up to 50 percent of the funding for these programs and the State Plan must be “at least as effective” as federal OSHA.
Cal/OSHA has recently hit employers with staggering penalties. Since June, 2015, Cal/OSHA imposed penalties against a meat byproducts processing company, a door manufacturer, a refinery and two construction firms amounting to $1.6 million.
Who is at risk?
Any employer that does not fully comply with OSHA safety standards is at risk for penalties. Unfortunately, many employers in industries that do not typically focus heavily on safety standards are equally at risk, not only for accidents and injuries, but also for stiff OSHA penalties. For example, retail businesses have been heavily penalized for such violations as blocked exits, fire extinguishers and similar non-obvious safety risks. Often ownership and management of such “white collar” businesses are unsophisticated about safety issues.
What should employers do?
Fortunately, employers have several months to take steps to avoid OSHA penalties. These should include making safety and compliance with applicable OSHA standards a priority. Where there is doubt about the specifics of a safety standard, employers should consult with their employment counsel, who may also recommend or involve safety specialists to ensure full compliance.
There may be barriers to proper preparation of a client for deposition or trial testimony. The biggest is usually the client. Clients who are not often involved in litigation have a difficult time understanding the need for serious testimony preparation. It’s time-consuming, expensive, repetitive, exhausting and generally irritating. After all, these clients reason, I’m just going to be asked to tell the truth, right? How hard can it be?
Reluctant clients need to understand the importance of adequate preparation. A deposition that goes bad, if it’s an important witness, can be a game-changing event in a case. Fortunately, many clients will heed our advice and take testimony preparation seriously.
Experienced lawyers differ on timing and methodology of testimony preparation. I recently heard a “rule of thumb” of 2 hours of preparation for every anticipated hour of testimony. This might work as a general guideline, though we seldom know beforehand how long a deposition is going to last. I prefer allowing lots and lots of time for preparation, and scaling back the actual time spent based on the client/witness progresses. Some clients/witnesses are naturally good at the process, others are not so good. I like to think I know how to improve those who are not so good, and I’ve also developed various methods, which I might share later, for helping increase a client’s comfort level in giving his or her testimony. Typically, practice alone—using credible mock deposition or cross-examination questions—makes a client more comfortable. When a client or other witness is comfortable and relaxed, he or she not only gives better testimony, but he or she feels better about the process. This, in turn, tends to build client trust in my skills.
Our conduct in defending the deposition itself can also engender (or erode) trust. Our clients need to know we’re there, alert and in control throughout the deposition. Effectively maintaining control of the process, strategic objecting, etc. are subjects for other posts. However, in addition to being alert, I think it’s important to maintain and convey a sense of calm throughout the deposition, even if opposing counsel is nasty or taunting. I’m of the mind that it is preferable to terminate a deposition that has become uncivil (and seek a protective order), rather than subjecting my client to angry arguments between the lawyers. It is rare, I’ve found, that a heated argument among counsel during a deposition will accomplish much beyond unnerving my client and leading to potentially harmful testimony.
