Seyfarth Synopsis: When must an employer provide leave time in addition to FMLA/CFRA-type leave as a reasonable accommodation? The answer to that question, as with many other leave-related questions, may depend on your location on the map.

Remember that early TV sitcom “Leave It To Beaver,” starring Jerry Mathers as the Beaver? “The Beave” constantly got into trouble and vented his righteous indignation at seemingly arbitrary parental authority. California employers might relate when they try to understand when to grant additional leave to employees failing to return from various protected leaves. Employers can find themselves exasperated by sometimes arbitrary-seeming rules for reasonable accommodation.

“Swell” in the Seventh Circuit

Outside of California, courts have imposed limits on leaves that extend beyond the specific leaves mandated by statute. Take the Seventh Circuit decision in Severson v. Heartland, which held that an employer granting a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) need not grant leave of more than a few weeks beyond an FMLA leave. Part of the rationale for this decision was that requiring employers to provide significant leave beyond an FMLA leave would convert the ADA to a medical leave entitlement statute (see our detailed blog on the decision here).  The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review Severson.

Severson reflects an interpretation of the ADA that would limit the leave employees would be entitled to in ADA-only jurisdictions.

“Gee Whiz” in California

Within California, courts have approached the issue differently. What should an employer do when an employee has used all mandated leave time? In California, the employer may be required to grant substantially more leave, as a matter of reasonable accommodation.

In Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013), the appellate court held that where an employee had exhausted her allotted leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDL), the employer had to continue an employee’s leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Likewise, in Gardner v. Federal Express Corp. (2015), where a driver on leave for a work injury had exhausted his 90-day leave, a federal district court denied summary judgment to the employer on a FEHA claim where a question of fact existed as to whether additional leave would have been a reasonable accommodation.

In deciding if continued leave would be a reasonable accommodation, courts look at whether the leave appears finite, and whether the employee could return to perform essential job functions at the end of the requested leave. Unfortunately, this analysis can pose factual problems for even the most cautious employer, as it can be obscure when (or if) an employee is likely to return.

Be-very Cautious Going Forward

Luckily, there are some limits to extended leave requirements, even in California.

In one leading case, Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999), the Court of Appeal made clear that after an employee’s protected leave entitlement has expired, “a finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties.” The Court of Appeal further noted that a “reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to be corrected.”

So there is a limit to how much leave an employer must provide beyond CFRA, FMLA, or PDL-related leaves. Unfortunately, exactly how long the employee can remain off work depends on the specific circumstances. Case law indicates that courts will look to the particular aspects of the business, difficulties in maintaining the employee’s position, and the general outlook of the employee’s ability to return to the position.

In one recent decision, Markowitz v. UPS (2018), the Ninth Circuit upheld summary judgment for an employer, holding that accommodating an employee for twelve months of leave after she had exhausted FMLA leave was reasonable, under the specific circumstances of that particular case.

Workplace Solution: Even though there are limits, the amount of time a California employer must grant FEHA leave in excess of other statutory entitlements is in the gray area of “reasonable accommodation.” Our suggestion is that employers tread cautiously, proceed step by step, evaluate developments as they occur, and consult with counsel at each fork in the road.

Edited by Coby Turner

Seyfarth Synopsis: Given recent headlines, a storm could be brewing over the boundaries of the attorney-client privilege in some parts of the country. California employers can avoid this vortex, at least when dealing with their current and former employees. Both can be part of the “corporate client” for purposes of attorney-client privilege, so long as communications with counsel meet a few requirements.

To provide sound legal advice, in-house counsel often communicate with current and even former employees from all levels of their corporations. Particularly with the storm over the scope of the attorney-client privilege currently raging in Washington, it never hurts to review when employees are “corporate clients” whose communications are privileged and sheltered from disclosure. The last place an employer wants to find itself is in the rain, without an umbrella, when the government or a bombastic plaintiff’s attorney starts poking around for in-house counsel’s communications.

Which Employees Are “Clients?”

California and federal privilege rules treat company employees similarly, but there are some differences. Federal courts, while applying federal-question jurisdiction, apply the well-known Upjohn standard. The Ninth Circuit describes this standard as protecting communications by any corporate employee, regardless of position, when

  • the communications concern matters within the scope of the employee’s corporate duties, and
  • the employee is aware that the information is being furnished to enable the attorney to provide legal advice to the corporation.

California courts apply a different set of factors. In the leading case, D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court listed eleven “basic principles” to determine when the attorney-client privilege exists in a corporate setting. Chadbourne’s principles overlap somewhat with federal law: (1) the communications must emanate from the employees’ job responsibilities and (2) the employee must understand that the communications are confidential. But Chadbourne adds some additional wrinkles, breaking privileged communications into three categories:

  1. If the employee is a defendant or may be charged with liability because of being employed, statements to in-house counsel relating to the potential dispute are privileged.
  2. In the ordinary course of business, employee communications with counsel are privileged if they “emanate” from the corporation, and the employee is the person who would ordinarily communicate the information to counsel.
  3. If the employee has witnessed an event requiring legal advice, communications with counsel are privileged when the employee is required to report the matter, and the “dominant purpose” for requiring the employee to talk with a lawyer is to provide the lawyer information from the company.

Multi-factor legal tests are not known for the clarity they provide. Chadbourne’s is no different. For instance, what happens if an employee walks into counsel’s office, undirected by a manager, to raise concerns about the job? Is that conversation privileged? The federal standard would suggest that privilege applies, so long as the conversation is confidential and the employee is seeking legal counsel about employment. But the California standard clouds up the legal skyscape. A strict reading of Chadbourne could suggest that privilege attaches only if the employer requires the employee to report conduct, a requirement arguably not met in our hypothetical.

Are Former Employees Ever “Clients?”

California courts have extended attorney-client privilege to some situations involving communication with former employees. Courts recognize the privilege where the corporate lawyer communicates with former employees when (1) matters fall in the former employees’ prior scope of employment, and (2) the lawyer needs to provide legal advice to the company. But corporate counsel again must proceed with caution.

As an initial matter, the privilege as to former employees is narrower than it is as to current employees. For instance, one federal judge interpreting California law refused to extend the privilege to counsel’s fact gathering interviews and deposition preparation with a former employee, as nothing required the former employee to communicate with counsel. The employee did not have a cooperation agreement with his former employer, and the former employee was not the only source of the information the company sought. Many employers could avoid this predicament with a joint-defense agreement with the former employee. But these agreements could come with their own risks, particularly where a potential conflict looms with the employee.

Further, even if the former employee’s communications with corporate counsel are privileged, opposing counsel could contact the employee directly. The opposing side cannot inquire into privileged communications, but there is little in practice that corporate counsel can do to ensure that the former employee does not unknowingly disclose privileged information.

So How Do Employers Avoid Privilege Storms With Their Employees?

Contrary to some high-level publicity on the subject, the attorney-client privilege is not dead. Indeed, it thrives, at least as it exists between California employers and their employees. But to ensure clear sailing, employers communicating with current and former employees should keep some tips in mind, lest they destroy the privilege in a storm of their own making:

  • Always be clear with current and former employees that you do not represent them personally, and that the communications are confidential. Often called “Upjohn Warnings,” the strongest notices to employees (1) make clear that the corporate lawyer does not represent the individual employee, (2) that anything the employee says to the lawyers will be protected by the company’s attorney-client privilege, (3) the employer retains the right to waive the privilege, and, depending on the type of situation, (4) individuals may wish to consult their own independent counsel if they have any concern about potential legal exposure. These warnings often are given in writing.
  • Document that the communication is related to providing legal advice to the company. That the conversation concerned legal issues relating to the company is a requirement for the attorney-client privilege to attach. Proper documentation could help establish the privilege in the event a court ever should question the purpose of the conversation.
  • Limit discussions with current and former employees to matters within the scope of their job duties. Again, this is a requirement for the privilege to attach, and thus, important to document, where feasible.
  • Do not discuss litigation strategy or share work product with the employees. This is a good strategy for all employees, but especially important for former employees because the opposing party in litigation can contact them directly, without going through the company’s counsel.
  • Ensure company policies include provisions reminding employees not to disclose the contents of communications with counsel. This is another opportunity for employers to impress upon employees that communications with counsel are confidential, which is key for the communications to be privileged.
  • Consider having departing employees sign cooperation agreements. Particularly for employees involved in active litigation, or where litigation is possible, having a cooperation agreement in place with former employees will help remove doubt whether they are “required” to provide information to employers, even after their employment ends.

Workplace Solutions: As one can see, navigating the stormy waters of corporate attorney-client privilege can be difficult. If you have further questions about this article, please feel free to contact the author or your favorite Seyfarth attorney.

Edited By: Michael Wahlander

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited opinion in which it considered which test should be used to decide whether a worker asserting claims under a California Wage Order is an employee or an independent contractor.  The following Seyfarth One Minute Memo summarizes the case and what it means for employers.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court, in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, held that “engage, suffer or permit to work” determines employee status for Wage Order claims, requiring a defendant disputing employee status to prove (A) the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with performing the work, both under contract and in fact; (B) the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker customarily engages in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hirer.

The Trial Court Decision

Delivery drivers Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez sued Dynamex Operations West for unlawfully classifying them and 1,800 other drivers as independent contractors. To argue that they were really employees, they cited California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9. Their motion for class certification argued that, under Martinez v. Combs (2010), they were employees in that Dynamex knew that they provided services and had negotiated their rates. The trial court certified a class. Dynamex petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate.

To view the full alert, please click on the link below:

http://www.seyfarth.com/publications/OMM050118-LE

Seyfarth Synopsis: California is rife with regulation of how employers may obtain and consider background check information for use in hiring and personnel decisions. The relatively new California ban-the-box law (effective January 1, 2018) and the older Los Angeles and San Francisco ordinances and amendments to the California Labor Code set strict rules on when and how employers can consider criminal and credit histories in employment. Many details to follow.

Before 2014, when San Francisco enacted a city-wide ban-the-box law, criminal history background checks were largely unregulated in California, except for a handful of Labor Code provisions that barred consideration of certain types of criminal records. And California employers were stripped of their ability to use credit checks for hiring and other personnel decisions in 2012, by amendments to the Labor Code that restricted the use of credit checks to very narrow circumstances. Los Angeles and the State of California have now joined San Francisco with their own ban-the-box laws, which markedly differ from San Francisco’s.

This blog highlights the laws concerning criminal and credit history background check reports in California, after briefly discussing the decades-old federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). As the number of class actions alleging FCRA violations continues to skyrocket, it is critical that California employers understand the basics of all laws affecting employment screening programs and determine what changes to policies, forms, and practices will ensure compliance and reduce the risk of claims.

FCRA Basics

Generally speaking, before an employer may obtain a consumer report (aka a “background check report”)—which may include criminal or credit history, from a third-party background check company (“consumer reporting agency” or “CRA”)—the employer must make a clear and conspicuous written disclosure to the individual, in a document that consists “solely” of the disclosure, that a background check may be done. California’s fair credit reporting statute also requires a separate, stand-alone disclosure, which cannot be combined with the FCRA disclosure. The applicant or employee must provide written consent for the employer to obtain a background check report. There are other requirements for “investigative consumer reports” (those based on interviews of the individual’s friends, neighbors and associates) and employers regulated by the Department of Transportation.

Before an employer relies in whole or in part on a background check report to take an “adverse action” (e.g., rescinding a conditional job offer or discharging an employee), the employer must provide the individual a “pre-adverse action” notice, and include with it a copy of the report and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Summary of Rights. This notice gives the individual an opportunity to discuss the report with the employer before the employer takes adverse action.

Once the employer is prepared to take the adverse action, it must then give the individual an “adverse action” notice, containing certain FCRA-mandated text.

California employers that rely on criminal and credit history information for employment purposes must also consider state and local laws that impose additional compliance obligations, regardless of whether the information is obtained from a CRA.

Employers May Order “Credit Reports” Only for Certain Positions

As noted, California employers have been hampered in their ability to order credit checks since 2012. Labor Code section 1024.5 states that employers, except for financial institutions, may order a credit check only if the individual works (or is applying to work) in certain positions:

  • a managerial position (as defined in California Wage Order 4);
  • a position in the State Department of Justice;
  • a sworn peace officer or law enforcement position;
  • a position for which the employer must, by law, consider credit history information;
  • a position that affords regular access to bank or credit card account information, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth (all three are required), so long as access to this information does not merely involve routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment;
  • a position where the individual is or will be a named signatory on the bank or credit card account of the employer or authorized to transfer money or authorized to enter into financial contracts on the employer’s behalf;
  • a position that affords access to confidential or proprietary information; or
  • a position that affords regular access during the workday to the employer’s, a customer’s or a client’s cash totaling at least $10,000.

Setting aside state and federal disclosure and authorization requirements discussed above, any California employer that intends to order a credit check on a position identified above must notify the individual in writing why the employer is using a credit report (e.g., the individual is applying for or holds a position that affords access to confidential or proprietary information).

California’s State and Local Ban-the-Box Laws Restrict Use of “Criminal History”

California’s statewide ban-the-box law (Gov’t Code § 12952), as of January 1, 2018, requires employers with five or more employees (subject to few exceptions) to follow certain procedures when requesting and using criminal history information for pre-hire purposes. Specifically, regardless of the source of the criminal history information, employers must:

  • Wait until after a conditional offer of employment to inquire about criminal history, which means asking applicants directly whether they have been convicted of a crime, ordering a criminal history background check, or making any other inquiry about an applicant’s criminal history.
  • Conduct an individualized assessment of an applicant’s conviction to determine whether it has a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.” Unlike the Los Angeles ban-the-box ordinance (discussed below), the California law does not require employers to provide the applicant with their assessment.
  • Notify the applicant of any potential adverse action based on the conviction history. The notice must identify the conviction, include a copy of any conviction history report (regardless of the source), and state the deadline for the applicant to provide additional information, such as evidence of inaccuracy, rehabilitation, or other mitigating circumstances.
  • After waiting the requisite time period, notify the applicant of any final adverse action, of any existing procedure the applicant has to challenge the decision or request reconsideration, and of the applicant’s right to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

In contrast to the FCRA pre-adverse and adverse action notices—required only if the adverse decision is based on information obtained from a background check report from a CRA—the California notices are required even if the employer doesn’t order criminal background check reports from a CRA, but learns of the criminal history from a different source (such as an applicant self-disclosure).

Substantively, a wide range of criminal records are off-limits to California employers (unless the employer qualifies for very narrow exceptions identified in the Labor Code). Records that cannot be used are:

  • arrests that did not lead to a conviction;
  • non-felony marijuana convictions that are older than two years;
  • juvenile records; and
  • diversions and deferrals.

Although complying with California law can be challenging, employers that hire in the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco must also look to the ban-the-box ordinances in these jurisdictions, which exceed the requirements found in the FCRA and the California ban-the-box law.

The Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance

The Los Angeles ordinance, effective January 22, 2017, applies to any “employer” located or doing business in the City of Los Angeles and employs 10 or more employees. An employee is any person who performs at least two hours of work on average each week in the City of Los Angeles and who is covered by California’s minimum wage law. The ordinance also applies to job placement and referral agencies and is broad enough to cover other types of work, including temporary and seasonal workers and independent contractors.

The L.A. ordinance goes beyond California-imposed requirements by imposing the following onerous steps on employers when considering criminal history (regardless of the source):

  • Perform a written assessment that “effectively links the specific aspects of the Applicant’s Criminal History with risks inherent in the duties of the Employment position sought by the Applicant.” The assessment form that contains the relevant factors can be found on the city’s website.
  • Provide the applicant a “Fair Chance Process”—giving the applicant an opportunity to provide information or documentation the employer should consider before making a final decision, including evidence that the criminal record is inaccurate, or evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors. As part of this process, the employer must include with the pre-adverse action notice a copy of the written assessment and any other information supporting the employer’s proposed adverse action.
  • Wait at least five business days to take adverse action or fill the position. If the applicant provides additional information or documentation, the employer must consider the new information and perform a written reassessment, which is at the bottom of the form mentioned above. If the employer still decides to take adverse action against the applicant, the employer must notify the candidate and attach a copy of the reassessment with the adverse action notice.

Los Angeles also states that all solicitations and advertisements for Los Angeles opportunities must state that the employer will consider qualified candidates with criminal histories in a manner consistent with the law.

Moreover, employers must post, in a conspicuous workplace that applicants visit, a notice that informs candidates of the Los Angeles ordinance. Copies of the notice must be sent to each labor union or representative of workers that has a collective bargaining agreement or other agreement applicable to employees in Los Angeles. This notice can be found on the City’s website.

San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance

San Francisco, as of August 13, 2014, became California’s first city to enact a ban-the-box law. Because the new California ban-the-box law provided greater protections to job applicants, the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors (on April 3, 2018) amended the Fair Chance Ordinance (Article 49) to align (in some respects) with the California law. However, employers with five or more employees working in San Francisco that intend to inquire about and consider criminal history (regardless of the source) also must:

  • Provide the applicant or employee with a copy of the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (“OLSE”) Fair Chance Act Notice before inquiring about criminal history or ordering a criminal history background check.
  • Post the OLSE Notice “in a conspicuous place at every workplace, job site, or other location in San Francisco under the Employer’s control frequently visited by their employees or applicants,” and “send a copy of this notice to each labor union or representative of workers with which they have a collective bargaining agreement or other agreement or understanding, that is applicable to employees in San Francisco.” The posted Notice must be in English, Spanish, Chinese, and any language spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace, job site, or other location at which it is posted. The Notice currently is on the OLSE’s website.

Covered San Francisco employers are barred from considering the following types of criminal records (even though these records are not off-limits in other California cities), subject to narrow exceptions: (i) infractions; (ii) convictions that are older than seven years (measured from the date of sentencing); and (iii) any conviction that arises out of conduct that has been decriminalized since the date of the conviction, measured from the date of sentencing (which would include convictions for certain marijuana and cannabis offenses).

California Workplace Solutions

Class actions against employers for failing to follow hyper-technical requirements for background checks have come to dominate the news. Employers in California and elsewhere will want to conduct (privileged) assessments to strengthen their compliance with the myriad laws that regulate use of an individual’s criminal and credit history. Suggested next steps include:

  • Assess coverage under the California, Los Angeles, and San Francisco ban-the-box laws, and California’s law restricting use of credit reports.
  • Review job advertisements and postings both for unlawful and mandatory language regarding criminal history.
  • Review job application and related forms for unlawful inquiries regarding criminal history.
  • Train employees who conduct job interviews and make or influence hiring and personnel decisions, regarding inquiries into, and uses of, credit and criminal history, including best practices for documentation and record retention.
  • Review the hiring process to ensure compliance, including the timing of criminal history background checks, the distribution of mandatory notices, and the application of necessary waiting periods.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Workplace violence is a major concern that can take the form of intimidation, threats, and even homicide. But fret not: California employers can arm themselves with restraining orders, to prevent a modern version of the “Fight Club” at work.

Rule Number 1: If There’s a Workplace Violence Threat, DO Talk About It—In Court

Being at work during a scene reminiscent of “There Will Be Blood” is not an ideal situation. Yet incidents of workplace violence are alarmingly common. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nearly two million Americans report that they have witnessed incidents of workplace violence, ranging from taunts and physical abuse to homicide. The recent Long Beach law firm shooting by an ex-employee serves as a chilling reminder of what forms such violence can take.

While there is no surefire way to stop unpredictable attacks against employees—whether by a colleague, client, or stranger—California employers can avail themselves of measures to reduce the risk of workplace threats. One such measure is a judicial procedure: a workplace violence restraining order under California Civil Procedure Code section 527.8.

Rule No. 2: Understand What a California Restraining Order Looks Like

A California court can issue a workplace violence restraining order to protect an employee from unlawful violence or even a credible threat of violence at the workplace. A credible threat of violence simply means that someone is acting in such a way or saying something that would make a reasonable person fear for the person’s own safety or that of the person’s family. Actual violence need not have occurred. Many actions short of actual violence—such as harassing phone calls, text messages, voice mails, or emails—could warrant issuing a restraining order.

Restraining orders can extend beyond just the workplace and protect the employees and their families at their homes and schools. A California court can order a person to not harass or threaten the employee, not have contact or go near the employee, and not have a gun. A temporary order usually lasts 15 to 21 days, while a “permanent” order lasts up to three years.

Rule Number 3: Employer Requests Only, Please

The court will issue a workplace violence restraining order only when it is requested by the employer on behalf of an employee who needs protection. The employer must provide reasonable proof that the employee has suffered unlawful violence (e.g. assault, battery, or stalking) or a credible threat of violence, or that unlawful violence or the threat of violence can be reasonably construed to be carried out at the workplace.

So how does an employer request and obtain protection for their employees?

Rule Number 4: Document the “Fight”

The employer must complete the requisite forms and file them with the court. Though the forms do not require it, it often is helpful to include signed declarations from the aggrieved employee and other witnesses.

If a temporary restraining order is requested, a judge will decide whether to issue the order within the next business day, and if doing so will provide a hearing date on a permanent restraining order. A temporary restraining order must be served as soon as possible on the offender. The order becomes effective as soon as it is served. Temporary restraining orders last only until the hearing date.

Rule No. 5: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize at the Hearing

At the hearing, both the employee needing the restraining order and an employer representative should attend. Employers may bring witnesses, too, to help support their case. The person sought to be restrained also has a right to attend, so the employee needing the restraining order should be ready to face that person. If necessary, the employer or the employee can contact the court or local police in advance to request that additional security or protective measures be put in place where there is a threat of harm.

During the hearing itself, the judge may ask both parties to take the stand for questioning. Upon hearing the facts, the judge will either decide to deny the requested order or decide to issue a permanent restraining order, which can last up to three years.

Restraining orders are a serious matter, as employers are essentially asking the court to curtail an individual’s freedom. But such an order is a powerful tool that an employer may find necessary to protect the safety of its employees.

Workplace Solutions: Even though it may relatively easy to demonstrate a credible threat of violence and thus obtain a protective order, know that California courts protect all individuals’ liberty, including their freedom of speech. Obtaining an order to restrain that liberty requires a detailed factual showing. If you have any questions about the process or if this is the right action for you, we highly recommend that you speak to your favorite Seyfarth attorney.

Please click on the below link for an interesting and timely article posted today on our sister blog, ADA Title III News & Insights:

Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs who pursued web accessibility actions under Title III of the ADA are now using website accessibility to test the limits of a different area of law – employment law – California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

[To continue reading, click here…]

We’re pleased to announce that the 2018 version of our Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different, your indispensable California employment law guide, is arriving next week, to coincide with our annual update Webinar on the same subject.  This edition, like its predecessors, aims to help private employers understand what’s peculiar about California employment law.  In the 2018 Edition, we continue to highlight recent court decisions and legislative developments, and how they may impact you and your business.

The book is available in a convenient, searchable eBook format.  Click here to order your copy today!

We also invite you to join us for a Cal-Pecs Webinar on Tuesday, April 17, 2018! Seyfarth attorneys Ann Marie Zaletel, Chelsea Mesa, and Coby Turner, will discuss the growing list of legal developments—judicial as well as legislative—that should concern executives, managers, general counsel, and human resources professionals with employees in California, including laws related to:

  • Enactment of California’s “Bathroom Bill”
  • New Transgender Identity and Expression Regulations
  • Expansion of Required California Anti-Harassment Training
  • New California Ban-the-Box Law
  • New California Salary History Ban
  • California Immigration Initiatives

There is no cost to attend this program, however, registration is required. Please click here to register! The webinar will be offered at the following times:

1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Pacific

On behalf of your Cal-Pecs team, thank you for your continued interest in the blog.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Can employers deny employment to people who use cannabis under a medical prescription authorized by state law? In more and more states, the answer is now “No.”

Changes in cannabis laws are creating a new haze for employers. What follows is a quick summary citing some (not all) states that now require employers to think twice before denying employment to individuals because they tested positive for the use of marijuana that they are ingesting for state-authorized medical reasons.

Potpourri of Pot Protective States

Arizona. Unless failure to do so would cause an employer to lose certain benefits under federal law, an employer may not discriminate because of a person’s status as a cannabis cardholder. While employers may discipline employees for ingesting marijuana in the workplace or for working while under the influence of marijuana, a registered qualifying patient cannot be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of marijuana in the patient’s system. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-2813, 36-2814, 23-493, 23-493.06.

Delaware. An employer cannot discriminate because of a person’s status as a medical cannabis cardholder unless failure to do so would cause the employer to lose certain federal benefits. An employer can, however, prohibit the ingestion, possession, or impairment of marijuana in the workplace. Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, §§ 4905A, 4907A.

Maine. Employers cannot test applicants for cannabis unless they submit a request to the State of Maine and that request is approved. Nor can Maine employers use a positive test for cannabis, by itself, to prove that an employee is impaired by cannabis. An employer can, however, prohibit smoking medical marijuana on its premises, can prohibit employees from using or consuming cannabis in the workplace, and can prohibit employees from working while under the influence. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 2423-E; 10-144-122 Me. Code R. 2.13.2; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 2454.

Minnesota. Employers may not discriminate against employees or applicants who hold a medical marijuana card or who test positive for marijuana, unless a failure to discriminate “would violate federal law or cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations.” If an employee uses, possesses, or is impaired by medical cannabis on the employer’s premises during work hours, then an employer may take action. Even then, however, employers must allow employees to explain (and present verification of enrollment in the patient registry) before taking any adverse action. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.32, 181.953.

New York. Employers cannot discriminate against certified medical marijuana users. A certified medical marijuana user is deemed to have a disability and employers must reasonably accommodate the underlying disability associated with the legal marijuana use. Employers can, however, enforce their policies prohibiting employees from performing work while under the influence. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 3369; N.Y. Labor Code § 201-d.

But what about California? California currently permits employers to forbid applicants and employees to use cannabis, regardless of whether it is medically prescribed. We refer you to our fearless prediction, however, that California will soon inhale the winds of change and join those states that protect medical cannabis users against employment discrimination. Two California legislators have proposed a bill that would amend the FEHA to create a new protected category: medical marijuana card holders. The bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against individuals for testing positive for cannabis or for being a qualified patient with an identification card. Continue to monitor this space for further developments.

If you have any questions regarding compliance with cannabis laws, please feel free to contact your favorite Seyfarth cannabis attorney. You can also get further into the weeds on developments in cannabis law at Seyfarth’s marijuana-specific blog: The Blunt Truth.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Even if bad Glassdoor reviews have you feeling like you need to fight back, employers should stay out of the ring, and instead implement social media policies that clearly define prohibited behavior and disclosures, while spelling out the consequences for violations. Employers must not retaliate against employees for their lawful out-of-office behavior.

People are used to sharing everything about their lives—from what they ate for breakfast to the funny name on their Starbucks Frappuccino. But this behavior can be scary for employers when current and former employees take to social media to complain about their jobs—or even defame their boss. Of particular interest are online platforms such as Glassdoor, which purport to provide “inside” information about working conditions, salaries, and company culture.

So what can an employer do when an employee posts a negative comment on Glassdoor about the company? The answer is … not much. The law often protects an employee’s off-duty speech. But the law does not protect defamatory speech, and it does not protect the disclosure of confidential, protected information. So proactive employers can take steps to make sure they are not unfairly smeared online and that their trade secrets are protected. We have a few suggestions in that regard.

What Are You Tryin’ To Prove: Don’t Get In The Ring

Websites such as Glassdoor, which has about 30 million monthly users, allow current and former employees to criticize or praise a company, typically through anonymous posts. Though many such sites screen critiques to prevent the posting of offensive comments and those that would disclose private information, they nonetheless present a conundrum for employers: Do you ignore criticism—even if it’s false—or do you respond to it? The former tactic can permit damage to an employer brand to go unchecked; the latter can make an employer look defensive.

In this new age of information, job applicants search employer review sites for information about companies. Responding to a negative review can help your brand if you do so in a way that shows the organization is genuinely committed to improving. But a response could also provide more fodder for further negativity, so it’s best to try to get ahead of the problem by making changes in-house, if necessary.

If your employees are posting on social media outside of working hours, California’s constitutional right to privacy can protect them from retaliation. Labor Code section 96(k) protects employees where they have engaged in lawful conduct asserting “recognized constitutional rights,” such as free speech postings on social media, occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises. A better avenue is to get ahead of the problem and educate employees about what they can and can’t post online about the company.

Put Your Robe On—And Implement a Social Media Policy

You can restrict free speech online for current employees with a social media policy (but only up to a point!). Employers should have a social media policy that prohibits posting confidential information about the company (and perhaps about posting anything about the company at all) without permission from the company’s public relations group. Every employee is required to follow the company’s legally compliant policies even if they are stricter than what the law would otherwise allow. If an employee violates your policies, that employee could be subject to employment discipline up to and including termination.

That said, there are limits to the restrictions employers can place on what employees can say about them online. The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of workers to discuss wages and working conditions with other workers. These protections apply to posts on social media, so your social media policy cannot prevent employees from communicating with other employees online about the company’s pay or working conditions, such as might be the case with a Glassdoor review.

For example, in analyzing one company’s social media policy that forbade employees from making anonymous posts about the company online, the NLRB’s general counsel found that “requiring employees to publicly self-identify in order to participate in protected activity imposes an unwarranted burden on Section 7 rights [of the National Labor Relations Act]. Thus, we found this rule banning anonymous comments unlawfully overbroad.”

You Never Got Me Down—Employers’ One-Two Punch Combo for Dealing with Social Media

  • It is prudent for employers to prepare and implement a social media in the workplace policy in order to avoid risks of disclosure of confidential and proprietary information and claims of cyberbullying, harassment, and discrimination.
  • Social media policies should clearly articulate the legitimate business interests the employer seeks to protect, as well as provide clear definitions of prohibited behavior and private and confidential information, and spell out the consequences for violations of the policy.
  • Employers should use caution when disciplining employees based on social networking activities, as certain union and nonunion employee rights need to be considered.
  • An employer may discipline an employee for posting negative comments on a social networking site if the employee’s comments are offensive or inappropriate, and not related to employment issues, and should do so on a consistent basis.

Workplace Solutions: Employers should open up a dialogue with employees about social media and encourage them to bring grievances to Human Resources, instead of airing their grievances online. Employers should also avoid retaliating against employees for posting on social media outside of work hours, and implement social media policies that clearly articulate the penalties for posting confidential information, and any defamatory statements.

Edited by Coby Turner

Seyfarth Synopsis: Dominating this spring’s planting of proposed employment-related legislation are bills aimed at ending sexual harassment and promoting gender equity. Among the secondary crops are bills regarding accommodation, leave, criminal history, and wage and hour law. It threatens to be another bitter fall harvest for California’s employer community.

California legislators stormed into the second half of the 2017-18 legislative session, introducing over 2,000 bills by the February 16 bill introduction deadline. With Spring upon us, one must ponder what L&E-related bills planted thus far will grow into by the time of the legislative harvest this fall. By that time some will have died on the vine in the summer heat, and some, fully ripened, will go to the Governor. Will the Governor, among the closing acts of his term, approve or reject them?

Meanwhile, the newly planted bills will get a week to rest as legislators head for Spring Break today, March 22. The Legislature reconvenes on April 2 for committee hearings and amendments. June 1 is the deadline for legislation to pass out of its house of origin. Stay tuned for more in-depth analyses of the proposed bills as the session continues.

Sexual Harassment

No fewer than ten bills address the issue of sexual harassment. Some are merely spot bills, while others are more developed. Because you all have day jobs, we have read the bills so you won’t have to. A brief summary of each follows. Contact us if you want to know more. Or even just to vent.

AB 1867 would require employers with 50 or more employees to retain records of all internal employee sexual harassment complaints for ten years, and would allow the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to seek an order compelling non-compliant employers to do so.

SB 1300 would amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to (1) absolve a plaintiff who alleges that his/her employer failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring from proving that sexual harassment or discrimination actually occurred, (2) prohibit release of claims under FEHA in exchange for a raise or a bonus or as a condition of employment or continued employment, and (3) require employers, regardless of size, to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training within 6 months of hire and every two years thereafter to all employees—not just supervisors.

SB 1343, which closely resembles SB 1300, would require employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of sexual harassment training to all employees by 2020 and then once every two years thereafter. SB 1343 would also require the DFEH to produce and publish a two-hour video training course that employers may utilize.

SB 224 would extend liability for claims of sexual harassment where a professional relationship exists between a complainant and an elected official, lobbyist, director, or producer. AB 2338 would require talent agencies to provide to employees and artists, and the Labor Commissioner to provide minors and their parents, training and materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, nutrition, reporting resources, and eating disorders.

Assembly Member Gonzalez-Fletcher introduced a package of spot bills (to which substance will later be added) targeting “forced arbitration agreements” and increasing protections for sexual harassment victims. AB 3080 would prohibit (1) requiring employees to agree to mandatory arbitration of any future claims related to sexual harassment, sexual harassment, or sexual assault as a condition of employment and (2) non-disclosure provisions in any settlement agreement. AB 3081 would create a presumption that an employee has been retaliated against if any adverse job action occurs against that employee within 90 days of making a sexual harassment claim, and would extend current sexual harassment training requirements to employers with 25 or more employees. AB 3082 would create a statewide protocol for public agencies to follow when In Home Support Service (IHSS) workers encounter harassment and sexual harassment prevention training for IHSS workers and clients. AB 2079—soon to be named the “Janitor Survivor Empowerment Act”—would enact specific harassment training rules for the janitorial service industry. AB 2079 builds upon AB 1978—the Property Services Workers Protection Act, effective July 1, 2018—which established requirements to combat wage theft and sexual harassment for the janitorial industry.

AB 1761 would require hotels to (1) provide employees with a free “panic button” to call for help when working alone in a guest room, (2) maintain a list of all guests accused of violence or sexual harassment for five years from the date of the accusation and decline service for three years to any guest on that list when the accusation is supported by a sworn statement, and (3) post on the back of each guestroom door a statement that the law protects hotel employees from violent assault and sexual harassment.

SB 1038 would impose personal liability under FEHA on an employee who retaliates by terminating or otherwise discriminating against a person who has filed a complaint or opposed any prohibited practice, regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of that employee’s conduct. (Personal liability already exists for harassment, but not for retaliation.)

AB 2366 would extend existing law, which already protects employees who take time off work related to their being a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. AB 2366 would also protect employees who take time off because an immediate family member has been such a victim. AB 2366 would also add sexual harassment to the list of reasons for which this protection applies.

AB 2770 addresses the apprehension that harassment complaints and employer responses might trigger defamation suits. AB 2770 creates a “privilege” for complaints of sexual harassment by an employee to an employer based upon credible evidence, for subsequent communications by the employer to “interested persons” and witnesses during an investigation, for statements made to prospective employers as to whether an employee would be rehired, and for determinations that the former employee had engaged in sexual harassment. The California Chamber of Commerce has sponsored this bill.

AB 1870 would extend the time an employee has to file a DFEH administrative claim (including, but not limited to, a sexual harassment claim). The current deadline is one year from the alleged incident. AB 1870 would make it three years! In a similar bill, AB 2946 would extend the time to file a complaint with the DLSE from six months to three years from the date of the violation. This bill would also amend California’s whistleblower provision to authorize a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

AB 1938 would limit employer inquiries about familial status during the hiring or promotional process. AB 1938 would make it unlawful to make any non-job related inquiry about an individual’s real or perceived responsibility to care for family members.

SB 820, the “Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure” (STAND) Act, would prohibit provisions in settlement agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2019 that require the facts of the case to be kept confidential, except where the claimant requested the provision, in cases involving sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination. SB 820 would allow settlement amounts to be kept private. The bill is sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Women’s Law Center.

AB 3109 would void any contract or settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2019 that waives a party’s free speech and petition rights, meaning one that would limit a party’s ability to make any written or oral statement before or in connection with an issue before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or make any written or oral statement in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest. The bill would also prohibit contracts or settlement agreements that restrict a party’s rights to seek employment or reemployment in any lawful occupation or industry.

Pay Equity

SB 1284 is another effort to mandate annual reporting of pay data. It follows last year’s vetoed AB 2019 attempt at a pay data report, though it more closely resembles last year’s failed revised federal EEO-1 report. SB 1284 would require employers with 100 or more employees to report pay data to the Department of Industrial Relations on or before September 30, 2019 and on or before September 30 each year thereafter. The report is to include the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex; all levels of officials and managers; professionals; technicians; sales workers; administrative support workers; craft workers; operatives; laborers and helpers; and service workers; and each employee’s total earnings for a 12-month period. Non-compliant employers would be subject to a $500 civil penalty. In contrast, last year’s AB 1209 would have required California employers with 500 or more employees to gather information on pay differences between male and female exempt employees and male and female board members and report the information annually to the Secretary of State for publishing (i.e., public shaming).

Wage/Hour

Pay Statements: SB 1252 would grant employees the right “to receive” a copy (not just inspect) their pay statements. AB 2223 would provide employers the option to provide itemized pay statements on a monthly basis in addition to the currently required semi-monthly basis or at the time wages are paid. Conversely, AB 2613 would impose penalties of $100 for each initial violation plus $100 for each subsequent calendar day, up to seven days, and more than double for subsequent violations, payable to the affected employees, on employers who violate Labor Code provisions requiring payment of wages twice per month on designated paydays, and once per month for exempt employees.

Flexible Work Schedules: AB 2482 would allow non-exempt employees working for private employers and not subject to collective bargaining agreements to request a flexible work schedule to work ten hours per day within a 40-hour workweek without overtime for the 9th and 10th hours, as long as the employee does not work more than 40 hours in the workweek.

Contractor Liability: AB 1565 is an urgency statute that would take effect immediately upon receiving the Governor’s signature. AB 1565 would repeal the express provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions including interest owed. The law currently extends liability in construction contracts for any debt owed for labor to a wage claimant incurred by any subcontractor acting under, by, or for the direct contractor or the owner.

PAGA: AB 2016 would require that the employee’s required written PAGA notice to the employer include a more in-depth statement of facts, legal contentions, and authorities supporting each allegation, and include an estimate of the number of current and former employees against whom the alleged violations were committed and on whose behalf relief is sought. AB 2016 would also prescribe specified notice procedures if the employee or employee representative seeks relief on behalf of ten or more employees. The bill would exclude health and safety violations from PAGA’s right-to-cure provisions, increase the time the employer has to cure violations from 33 to 65 calendar days, and provide an employee may be awarded civil penalties based only on a violation actually suffered by the employee. (In sum, a valiant effort to provide employers with some modicum of due process in PAGA case, but it doesn’t stand a chance.)

Accommodations

Lactation: AB 1976 would clarify existing law so that employers must make reasonable efforts to provide a room or location for lactation, other than a bathroom. This bill cleared its first hurdle—the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee—by receiving unanimous approval on March 14. SB 937 would require even more: a lactation room must be safe, clean, and free of toxic or hazardous materials, must contain a surface to place a breast pump and personal items, must contain a place to sit, and must have access to electricity. SB 937 would also require employers to develop and implement a new lactation accommodation policy. The policy must describe an employee’s right to a lactation accommodation, how to request an accommodation, the employer’s obligation to provide accommodation, and the employee’s right to file a request with the Labor Commissioner. Employers would be required to respond to an employee’s accommodation request within five days and provide a written response if the request is denied, and maintain accommodation request records for three years. SB 937 would make employers with fewer than five employees eligible for an undue hardship exemption from the room or location requirement. The bill would also charge the DLSE with the responsibility of creating a model lactation policy and request form and making it available to employers on the DLSE website.

Marijuana: About a dozen states now protect medical cannabis users from employment discrimination. California, meanwhile, has permitted employers to enforce policies against the use of cannabis, which remains illegal under federal law. AB 2069 would change that. AB 2069 would prohibit employers from refusing to hire, taking adverse action against, or terminating an employee based on testing positive for cannabis if the employee is a qualified patient with an identification card or their status as one. The bill would permit employers to take corrective action against an employee who is impaired while on the job or on the premises, and would not apply to employers who would lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal law if they hired or retained such an employee.

Sick & Other Leaves

AB 2841 would increase an employer’s alternate sick leave accrual method from 24 hours by the 120th calendar day of employment to 40 hours (or 5 days) of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment. But an employee’s total sick leave accrual would not need to exceed 80 hours (or 10 days). An employer would be able to limit the amount sick leave carried over to the following year to 40 hours or 5 days. This increase would apply to IHSS providers beginning January 1, 2026.

AB 2587 would remove an employer’s ability to require an employee to take up to two weeks of earned but unused vacation before the employee receives family temporary disability insurance benefits under the paid family leave program to care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a minor child within one year of birth or placement during any 12-month period the employee is eligible for these benefits.

Criminal History

Following the state-wide Ban-the-Box law that went into effect on January 1, 2018, AB 2680 would require the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a standard consent form that employers must use when requesting that a job applicant consent to a DOJ criminal conviction history background check. Meanwhile, the “Increasing Access to Employment Act,” SB 1298, would limit the criminal history information the DOJ will provide employers to recent misdemeanors and felonies (within five years), and other offenses for which registration as a sex offender is required. The bill would also prohibit the disclosure of any convictions that have been dismissed, exonerations, or arrests that have been sealed.

SB 1412 would allow employers to inquire into a job applicant’s particular conviction, regardless of whether that conviction has been judicially dismissed or sealed, under these specified conditions: (1) the employer is required by state or federal law to obtain information about the particular conviction, (2) the job applicant would carry or use a firearm as part of the employment, (3) the job applicant with that particular conviction would be ineligible to hold the position sought, or (4) the employer is prohibited from hiring an applicant who has that particular conviction.

AB 2647 would prohibit evidence of a current or former employee’s criminal history from being admitted, under specified circumstances, in a civil action based on the current or former employee’s conduct against an employer, an employer’s agents, or an employer’s employees.

In a category all its own, yet still notable:

SB 954 would require an attorney representing a party in mediation to inform the client of the confidentiality restrictions related to mediation and obtain informed written consent that the client understands these restrictions before the client participates in the mediation or mediation consultation.

Workplace Solutions.

Don’t fret yet! Spring has only just sprung, and these bills all have a lot of growing to do (with some pruning for improvement?). Stay tuned … . We’re keeping our eyes and ears glued on the Capitol.