On September 30, 2018, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law several bills that greatly expand the rights of employees to pursue sexual harassment lawsuits in California. The majority of these laws require immediate attention as they become effective January 1, 2019. This  discusses these laws and provides recommendations for how employers can act to avoid liability.

Expanded Liability for Sexual Harassment

SB 1300 makes numerous changes to existing law with regard to liability for alleged sexual harassment. In serial form, beginning on January 1, 2019, employers will:

• Be prohibited from requiring a release of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims in exchange for a bonus, raise, employment or continued employment;
• Be prohibited from recovering fees and enhanced costs through use of statutory (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §998) offers to compromise, except where the employer can show (1) the lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable and/or without merit; or (2) the employee continued to litigate a claim after becoming aware his/her case had no merit;
• Be potentially liable for any kind of unlawful harassment by nonemployees;
• Be potentially liable even where the harassment was a single instance or “stray remark” by a non-decision-maker;
• Be less likely to prevail on a sexual harassment case through a motion for summary judgment.

The statute of limitations refers to the “window” of time following an event within which an alleged victim can bring a civil action. Claims of sexual harassment can include a claim of sexual assault, in which the victim claims he/she was sexually touched without consent, or coerced or forced to engage in a sexual act. AB 1619 expands the limitations period for sexual assault claims to 10 years after the act, or 3 years after the alleged victim discovers the injury, whichever is later.

Expanded Definition of Sexual Harassment

SB 224 expands the list of professional relationships which can form the basis of a claim for sexual harassment. To the previous list, which included physician, psychotherapist, dentist and real estate agent, the bill adds individuals who present themselves as able to assist one in establishing a business, service or professional relationship. The law specifically identifies lobbyists, elected officials, directors, producers and investors.

Limits on Nondisclosure of Allegations and/or Settlements

Settlements of sexual harassment claims have historically included nondisclosure clauses, preventing the alleged victim from disclosing details about the claim and settlement. SB 820 prohibits provisions that prevent the disclosure of factual information relating to certain claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or discrimination based on sex, that are filed in a civil or administrative action.

The bill makes such provisions in a settlement agreement on or after January 1, 2019, void as a matter of law and against public policy. The bill creates a limited exception for a provision that shields the identity of the claimant and facts that could lead to the discovery of his or her identity, if that provision is included in the agreement at the claimant’s request.

Additionally, AB 3109 renders void and unenforceable any clause that prevents a party to a settlement agreement from testifying about alleged criminal conduct or sexual harassment in an administrative, legislative or judicial proceeding.

Additional Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

California law currently requires employers with 50+ employees to provide their supervisors with sexual harassment prevention training every 2 years. Effective January 1, 2020, SB 1343 requires any employer who employs 5 or more employees, including temporary or seasonal employees, to provide at least 2 hours of sexual harassment prevention training to all supervisory employees, and at least 1 hour of such training to all nonsupervisory employees, once every 2 years. The bill also requires the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to develop or obtain 1-hour and 2-hour online training courses on the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.

What Should Employers Do

Many of these new laws will impact how employment lawyers do their job, and will likely make it more difficult to resolve sexual harassment claims and lawsuits without a trial. However, employers remain primarily responsible and should examine their practices to ensure they maintain a harassment-free workplace.

Consideration should be given to getting a head start on sexual harassment prevention training, including for non-supervisory personnel. Employers with questions about how to reduce their chances of being targeted by a sexual harassment claim should contact their qualified employment law counsel.

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:

1. Is free from the employer’s control and direction;
2. Performs a service that is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
3. Customarily engages in an independently established trade, occupation or business.

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 may be already aware of the significant movement afoot to eliminate the consideration of an applicant’s criminal history, both from job applications and the interview, until a conditional offer of employment has been made. Variously termed “Ban the Box” or “fair chance” laws, the goal is to “ensure a fairer decision-making process” because, it is believed, anything that makes it harder for ex-offenders to find a job makes it more likely they will re-offend.

In California, the state of the law in this area is very much in flux. The purpose of this Bulletin is to discuss the current state of the law, including a new set of regulations issued in January, and provide a preview of pending legislation that is reasonably likely to be signed into law.

The Current Law

Under the current California laws and regulations, it is unlawful for an employer to consider the following from an applicant’s background record when hiring:

• An arrest or detention that did not result in a conviction
• A referral or participation in a pre/post-trial diversion program
• A conviction that has been sealed, judicially dismissed, expunged or statutorily eradicated
• An arrest, detention, etc. while the applicant was subject to the jurisdiction of a juvenile court (i.e., under 18 years of age)
• Any non-felony conviction for possession of marijuana that is more than 2 years old
• Any criminal history if it will result in an adverse impact on individuals within a protected class (commonly termed disparate impact discrimination)

Before an employer can refuse to hire based on an applicant’s criminal history, it must provide the applicant notice of the disqualifying conviction and an opportunity to show that it is factually inaccurate. If shown to be inaccurate, the conviction cannot be relied upon.

There are exceptions to these prohibitions for certain classes of employers, including health care facilities, that are required by law to screen prospective employees or prohibit hiring of individuals with criminal records.

Additionally, the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles have enacted their own “Ban the Box”-type ordinances with more stringent requirements/limitations than those described above.

Pending Legislation

Assembly Bill 1008, introduced on February 16, 2017, proposes to add a section to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which would create new statewide restrictions on employers’ ability to make pre-hire decisions based on an applicant’s criminal history.

Under the proposed new law, employers:

• Cannot include on an application any question that seeks disclosure of the applicant’s criminal history
• Cannot inquire or consider an applicant’s criminal history before the applicant receives a conditional offer of employment
• Cannot consider an applicant’s conviction of a misdemeanor where no jail time is possible
• Cannot consider infractions or misdemeanor convictions older than 3 years
• Cannot consider felony convictions older than 7 years
• Must undertake an individualized assessment to determine whether a conviction has a “direct and adverse relationship” with the specific duties of the job sought before the applicant can be denied employment based on a conviction

If the employer decides, following this individualized assessment, to deny employment it must provide written notice that:

• Identifies the specific conviction relied upon to deny employment
• Provides a copy of the conviction history report
• Provides examples of mitigation or rehabilitation evidence that the employer would consider
• Provides notice of the applicant’s right to respond within 10 days

The applicant may then offer information that challenges the accuracy of the conviction or provide mitigation/rehabilitation evidence. In its current form, the bill requires the employer to consider any mitigation/rehabilitation evidence the applicant offers.

If the applicant does not respond to the first written notice, or upon receipt of the applicant’s response the employer still decides against hiring the applicant, it must provide a second written notice that:

• Notifies the applicant of its final decision
• Describes any existing internal procedure under which the applicant can challenge the employer’s decision
• Discusses whether the applicant could be eligible for other positions at the company
• Identifies the earliest date when the applicant can reapply to the employer for a position
• Notifies the application of its right to file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)

What Should Employers Do?

California employers should ensure that their hiring practices fully comply with existing California laws, which must include consideration whether they are also governed by the separate ordinances for the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Additionally, employers should monitor the progress and outcome of Assembly Bill 1008, and appropriately adjust their practices if it passes. Employers with lingering questions should not hesitate to contact their experienced employment law counsel.

Now that I’ve used every word that begins with “C” in the title, here’s the post:

On July 11, 2013, a California appellate court, in Beaumont-Jacques v. Farmers Group Ins., affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurance company on the question whether a District Manager was properly classified as an independent contractor and not an employee. In so holding, the court provided clarification on the proper analysis for determining this important issue.

Why is this important?

California employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors face potential liability, which can include compensatory damages, stiff penalties and attorney’s fees.

What happened in the Beaumont-Jacques case?

A former District Manager, Erin Beaumont-Jacques, sued Farmers Insurance on various theories all of which hinged on a determination that she was a Farmers Insurance employee. In support of her position, Ms. Beaumont-Jacques pointed out that: (1) she was bound by a contract to only represent Farmers in recruiting and training sales agents; (2) she could train such agents only to sell Farmers’ insurance products; (3) the applicable contract required her to “conform” to Farmers’ “normal business practices” and “goals and objectives”; and (4) Farmers enjoyed the option to terminate her contract without cause.

In affirming the trial court’s granting of a motion for summary judgment brought by Farmers, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District clarified that, even where other factors may suggest an employment relationship, it was sufficient for independent contractor classification that Ms. Beaumont-Jacques “exercised meaningful discretion with reference to her efforts” undertaken on behalf of Farmers. Specifically, the Court said: “While [Farmers] . . . had input over the quality and direction of [her] . . . efforts, they did not have sufficient ‘control over the details’ with respect to those efforts” to render the relationship one of employment rather an independent contractor.

What is the takeaway?

The paramount consideration in determining whether a worker can be properly classified as an independent contractor under California law is whether the worker maintains the right to control the means by which she accomplishes her duties.

In February, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision applying the mixed-motive defense to employment discrimination cases brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). First, a brief bit of background: according to the mixed-motive defense, available in federal employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII, if an employer had both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory reasons for firing an employee, the employer should not be liable if the nondiscriminatory reason alone was sufficient to warrant termination of the employee.

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, a bus driver was terminated for performance-related reasons shortly after she notified her supervisor that she was pregnant. She sued the City alleging the termination was an instance of pregnancy discrimination. At trial, the City asked the court to instruct the jury that, if the City proves it would have reached the same decision to terminate the driver even without a discriminatory motive, then it could not be held liable. The court refused this instruction and instead instructed the jury that if the bus driver proved her pregnancy was “a motivating factor/reason for the discharge” then the City was liable. The jury found the plaintiff’s pregnancy was a motivating factor and awarded her $177,905 in damages and $401,187 in attorney’s fees.

The City appealed and the Court of Appeal determined that the proposed mixed-motive instruction should have been given. It reversed and remanded. Harris sought, and the California Supreme Court granted, review of the Court of Appeal decision.

The Supreme Court held that the instruction should have required the plaintiff to establish, not just that discrimination was a motivating factor or reason, but that it was “a substantial motivating factor/reason” for the termination.* If the plaintiff makes this showing, the employer then has the opportunity to limit its exposure by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision for nondiscriminatory reasons, such as job performance. If the jury finds in favor of the employer on this issue, the plaintiff may not recover compensatory damages, back pay or reinstatement, though she may still seek and recover injunctive and declaratory relief. Additionally, she may stll be entitled to recover her attorney’s fees in prosecuting the lawsuit under FEHA.

At first blush, Harris would seem to be a positive development for California employers–and it is. The problem is that employment discrimination suits tend to be attorney-fee driven, with the result that lawyers will file and aggressively pursue marginal liability cases with the hope of striking it big with an attorney fee award. Consider the trial result in Harris, in which the attorney fees sought were over twice the damages award. The practical impact is that the employer is punished (though an attorney fee award) even when it otherwise succeeds in its mixed-motive defense.

*Emphasis added.

An important change to California Labor Code 2751 takes effect January 1, 2013. That’s next week!

The change requires California employers who pay their employees sales commissions (regardless whether commissions are all or just part of the worker’s compensation) to enter into a written employment agreement. The law previously only required an agreement for out-of-state employers with no permanent and fixed place of business in California. Note that simply setting forth compensation terms in an employee handbook or written commission policy will not satisfy this obligation.

Here’s the fine print:

• Again, the agreement must be in writing.
• It must explain how the commission will be computed and paid.
• It must explain how a commission is earned and any conditions required for the commission to be earned.
• The employee must be given a signed copy of the written agreement and employers must obtain a signed acknowledgement from the employee confirming receipt. This signed acknowledgement should be kept in the employee’s personnel file.
• Employers who wish to terminate or change the commission policy, should do so by a written amendment or new written agreement that supersedes the earlier agreement (again, with a signed acknowledgement of receipt).
• This agreement is not required for short-term productivity bonuses.
• This law does not apply to independent contractors.

Happy New Year employers!

Some employers struggle with reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious preferences. Effective January 1, 2013, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) definition of “religious creed” will be amended to explicitly include “religious dress practice” and “religious grooming practice.” “Religious dress practice” includes the wearing or carrying of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, artifacts, and any other item that is part of the observance by an individual of his or her religious creed, while “religious grooming practice” includes all forms of head, facial and body hair that are part of the observance by an individual of his or her religious creed. The terms “religious dress” and “grooming practices” are to be broadly construed.

I hold the (perhaps naive) belief that, when most employers violate prohibitions against religious discrimination, it’s often by accident. So I try to provide examples.  The HR Gazette provides these:

“‘[R]eligious dress’ means virtually any piece of clothing or accessory that signifies or expresses a religious creed or belief.  The most common examples are a hijab (the headscarf worn by Muslim women), the dastar (the turban worn by Sikh males) or a yarmulke (the skullcap worn by Jewish males).  Religious dress could also include jewelry such as a Christian cross, Star of David, or an Ankh.”

“[A]n employer would be required to accommodate an employee’s religious belief by allowing him to wear a beard or long hair in the workplace.  Some religions require men and women to shave their head.”

Here are a couple of ripped-from-the-headlines cases to further illustrate:

1. A certain “preppy” store refused to hire a woman when she appeared for an interview wearing a headscarf, which she wore for religious reasons as a devout Muslim. The employer argued that it had a strict “Look” policy in order to insure a unified “preppy” brand image. The jury awarded the woman $20,000.

2. A fast food chain was sued after terminated a devout Nazirite due to his failure to cut his hair. Nazirites do not cut their hair as a sign of devotion to God. The employee had worked for six years without cutting his hair (in fact, he had not cut his hair since he was 15 years old) before the company tried to enforce its grooming policy that required him to cut his hair. The chain entered into a consent decree whereby it settled the case and agreed to pay the employee $27,000, and also to adopt a formal religious accommodation policy.

Employers subject to FEHA must reasonably accommodate an individual’s religious creed. The amendments provide that an action that segregates or hides an individual, either from other employees or the public, because of that individual’s religious dress or grooming practices is not a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious dress or grooming practices.

A new California law restricts an employer’s right to seek access to existing or prospective employees’ social media accounts.

The law, Chapter 2.5 of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code (commencing with Section 980),  defines “social media” for purposes of the new law to mean “an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.”

Under the new law, employers cannot request existing or prospective employees to disclose either a username or password, to access a personal social media account in the presence of the employer, or to divulge any personal social media.  It is also unlawful to retaliate against an employee or applicant for refusing such a request.

Important exceptions to the law are (1) where divulging social media is “reasonably believed” to be relevent to an investigation of an employee’s violation of law or allegations of employee misconduct; and (2) if done for the purpose of accessing an employer-issued electronic device.

I have a friend who is a BSD in the venture capital world.  I reached out to him a while back because I had read that one of the companies his firm was funding was about to undergo a significant expansion.  I asked my friend if he wouldn’t mind introducing me to the company’s general counsel, so I could get my foot in the door in helping the company establish a solid platform for management of employment issues which were bound to arise, given their imminent hiring.

To my surprise, my friend rebuffed me.  “To tell you the truth,” he said, “it’s really not something that’s on their radar at this point.”  I let it pass–there might have been a variety of reasons he didn’t want to make the introduction.  But, suppose he was telling me the truth, that he thought the general counsel of this emerging tech start-up really didn’t need to be thinking about who to use to prevent and, if necessary, deal with employee “issues.”

If he was telling the truth, I think he was mistaken.  This is particularly true given that the company was domiciled in California, unquestionably the most hostile legal environment in the world for employers.

Granted, I don’t think selecting employment counsel is on par with raising funds or gaining market share. If the company fails, there won’t be employees to make claims or file lawsuits.   On the other hand, meeting and potentially retaining a legal expert to review the company’s policies, draft or revise a handbook and perhaps conduct some training is neither time-consuming nor rocket science.  It is certainly not expensive.  Particularly if the ounce of prevention establishes, at the company’s early stages, a solid foundation which prevents even one otherwise avoidable employment lawsuit.

I have seen up close organizations that started and grew without a solid, systematic adherence to employment laws.  In each instance, I’ve become involved only after the company has been sued and we are trying to frame a defense.  At that point, the company’s management invariably recognizes its shortcomings and vows to do better going forward.  Unfortunately, this only happens after the company is forced to spend tens of thousands (or more) in settlement and defense costs.

It is not unusual for small employers to look to their “business” counsel for guidance on complying with employment issues.  This is the lawyer that drafted their articles of incorporation or negotiated a lease.  However, it is more common for this to occur only after there has been a claim or suit.  Before that time, my friend is right, it’s literally “not on their radar.”

I’m partial to the idea of working with a lawyer that concentrates his or her practice on employment defense, rather than a business generalist.  There are lawyers who do nothing but employment advice and counseling, which is who I–a litigator–will look to if I’m confronted with a particularly unusual question.  The problem for the commercial lawyer in advising on employment issues is the rapidly changing nature of employment laws.  An additional problem arises when the claim goes further, and ripens into an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) or similar agency, or if there is a civil lawsuit filed.  While the company’s business lawyer might be a wizard at negotiating a complex lease, he or she might struggle when conducting a deposition, drafting a solid motion for summary judgment or representing the company in front of a jury.

I have all the respect in the world for entrepreneurs.  And I expect there are a thousand and one issues and headaches to successfully navigate without having another lawyer stick his or her nose into how the company runs its business.  But the last survey I saw said that the average verdict or award in employment lawsuits where the employer lost was over $400,000 (and this was a few years ago).  I’d argue that it’s never too early to put retaining an employment lawyer “on the radar.”

Not everyone is cut out to play the boss.  While I suspect there are a few sadists who actually enjoy the act of firing an employee, most people hate delivering bad news and learning you’re now jobless usually ranks near the top of the bad news heap.

From the point of view of a lawyer who represents employers in lawsuits, however, I view the process of termination to be extremely important.  It can be tempting, when one is forced to deliver the news, to sugarcoat.  Most sugar-coating doesn’t really make anyone feel better.  For example, “you’ll always be part of the family,” or “you’ll thank me someday for this chance at a fresh start,” might have worked for George Clooney in “Up In The Air,” but it’s a pretty stupid thing to say in the real world.

One brand of sugar-coating that can be really dangerous concerns mischaracterizing a termination for poor work performance as something other than what it is.  In particular, suggesting a sub-par employee is being “laid off” creates substantial risk.  If the “redundant” employee is replaced anytime in the near future, it sets the stage for him or her to argue, in a subsequent discrimination lawsuit, that the lack of work was merely a pretext.  That the actual goal was to eliminate the employee on the basis of some protected characteristic (i.e., race, gender, disability, religion).  This kind of evidence plays well at trial: like all of us, jurors love to hear about conspiracies and cover-ups.

One way for employers to make the act of termination less of a surprise–and therefore less painful for everyone involved–is to make termination the final step in a progressive discipline policy.  Implementing such a policy starts with  a frank discussion with the underperforming employee that is documented by a dated, written record of the discussion.  This type of discussion does not even need to be characterized as discipline, but rather a coaching tool.

If verbal discussions (documented) do not improve performance, the next step should be a written notice that describes the problem, proposes a solution and is provided to the employee concurrently with the verbal discussion.  The employee should be asked to sign this document, and perhaps there will be a space dedicated for any response the employee might have.  lf the problem persists, the possibility of one or more additional written notices/warnings can be provided, but the message communicated should be that, after a defined number of written notices/warnings, termination will result.

A progressive, documented discipline policy serves two really important purposes.  For me–your lawyer–it is important evidence if a wrongful termination or other lawsuit results from the employment relationship or termination.  Perhaps more importantly, though, it gives the employee every chance to succeed.