2018 Cal-Peculiarities

We took a break this week, to wrap up loose ends and gear up for Labor Day. So we did not draft an original blog post. But we did retrieve, from the archives, a quick history of why we celebrate this holiday to honor the American worker. Here it is, as fodder for your contemplation over the weekend: https://www.dol.gov/general/laborday/history

Also, today (August 31) is the last day for the California Legislature to pass bills. So we have been laboring on our updated Cal-Legislative Update, coming your way next week. This piece will summarize the bills that have survived the legislative gauntlet and face review by Governor Brown.

We wish each of you a wonderful and safe holiday. Don’t work too hard.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Following a season of unprecedented outcry over persistent work-related sexual harassment, known best as the “#MeToo” movement, California lawmakers this session have considered a record number of bills that address the problem. One bill, AB 1867, recently passed by the Legislature and discussed below, will (if signed by the Governor) require large employers to keep records of all employee complaints alleging sexual harassment for at least five years. Other bills working their way through the process (as if to say “me, too”) also address this vital topic, as we briefly recap below.

Potential New Recording-Keeping Law

If signed by Governor Brown, AB 1867 will add Government Code section 12950.5 to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This bill would require employers of 50 or more employees to maintain internal records of complaints alleging sexual harassment for five years after the date the complainant or any alleged harasser leaves the company—whichever date is later.

AB 1867 would define an “employee complaint” as one filed through the employer’s “internal complaint process.” Existing law already requires California employers to maintain anti-harassment policies that inform employees of the complaint process available to them. The new law would permit the state Department of Labor to seek an order compelling any employer to comply with the record-keeping requirement.

In practice, this law would likely not add too much of an administrative burden to the larger employers covered by it. It is the rare—and foolhardy—California employer that does not already utilize an internal employee complaint process that takes seriously and investigates every complaint of harassment. This law would merely mandate that records of the complaints alleging sexual harassment must be maintained for the employment-plus-five-year period.

This bill raises other questions, though, for the thoughtful employer anticipating logistical issues: Would the law also mandate preservation of any investigation files? Who would have access to the preserved complaint records? What about the privacy rights of the parties involved? Would an applicant for employment at a company have a right to demand to see any complaints made alleging sexual harassment against the company? The answer to the last question should almost certainly be “No,” so long as California’s constitutional right of privacy remains intact. But it does highlight concerns about the potential use of the documents required to be maintained, which contains, by definition, only allegations of sexual misconduct.

Related Legislation

AB 1867 is not the only potential new law in this summer of #MeToo. Also heading to the Governor’s desk is AB 3109, which would void any contractual provision that waives a party’s right to testify about criminal conduct or sexual harassment by the other contracting.

Also being presented to the Governor is AB 3080—which we recently highlighted here. This bill would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements between businesses and employees or independent contractors, and thus ensure that harassment complaints get aired in public lawsuits instead of private arbitrations. Further, AB 3080 would prohibit any contractual rule against disclosing instances of sexual harassment.

Nine other bills addressing workplace harassment are currently wending their way through the Legislature, their fates still unknown:

On the Assembly Floor:

  • The potentially onerous SB 1300 would (1) amend FEHA by expanding an employer’s potential liability, (2) prohibit a release of claims under FEHA or a nondisclosure agreement (with certain exceptions) in exchange for a raise or a bonus or as a condition of employment or continued employment, and (3) prohibit a prevailing defendant from being awarded fees and costs in certain circumstances.
  • SB 1038 would impose personal liability under FEHA for retaliating against a person who has filed a complaint against the employee, testified against the employee, assisted in any proceeding, or opposed any prohibited practice.
  • SB 1343 would expand sexual harassment prevention training requirements to employers with five or more employees and would require that Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) materials be made available in multiple languages.
  • SB 820 would void provisions in settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of facts relating to sexual assault, sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and failure to prevent sex-based harassment and discrimination.
  • SB 224 would give additional examples of professional relationships where liability for claims of sexual harassment may arise and authorize the DFEH to investigate those circumstances.

On the Senate Floor:

  • AB 2079 would expand requirements when applying to register as a janitorial business and expand sexual harassment prevention training.
  • AB 1870 would extend the period to file an administrative charge with the DFEH alleging an unlawful employment practice under the FEHA. The current deadline is one year from the time the alleged incident. AB 1870 would extend the deadline to three years.
  • AB 2338 would require talent agencies to provide to adult artists, within 90 days of retention, educational materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, nutrition, and eating disorders. Talent agencies would also have to retain, for three years, records showing that those educational materials were provided.
  • AB 3082 would require the state Department of Social Services to develop or identify educational materials addressing sexual harassment of in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers, develop or identify a method to collect data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in the IHSS program, and provide a summary of those items to the Legislature by September 30, 2019.

Stay tuned for updates on which, if any, #MeToo bill will make it over the enactment finish line, adding to the body of work that makes California employment law the peculiar wonder that it is.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As of August 30, 2018, California businesses must provide the public with more information about dangerous chemicals present at the business location. Many California employers will comply with the new requirements through the Cal/OSHA-required workplace hazardous communication program. For occupational exposures that do not meet the thresholds for HazMat communications, posting new signs will meet the requirements.

California’s ubiquitous Proposition 65 warnings, which warn the public at large of the presence of known cancer-causing chemicals, are receiving a makeover. Beginning August 30, 2018, regulations enacted by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will require businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings regarding Prop 65 listed chemicals. For businesses in general, this new requirement typically will mean displaying signs advising the public of known carcinogens on site. (Technically, California does not require the use of these signs, but they provide a safe harbor for businesses because they are deemed compliant with Proposition 65; it is more risky to rely on a homegrown Prop 65 sign.)

The new signs will display the name of at least one chemical that prompted the warning; convey more directly the risk of exposure for consumer products (e.g., saying the product “can expose you to” a listed chemical, rather than that the product “contains” a chemical); and refer to a website that will provide additional, relevant information.

For employers, however, not much will change. Employers already must warn employees of hazardous exposures, as defined by Cal/OSHA standards, occurring at the workplace. Most employers satisfy that duty by implementing a hazardous communication program that complies with Cal/OSHA standards. Employers may continue to do so under the revised Prop 65 regulations. In that sense, a compliant HazCom program (which already requires information about present hazards, employee training, and the availability of safety data sheets) will continue to provide a safe harbor to employers.

Some occupational exposures to listed chemicals do not trigger HazCom threshold requirements but nonetheless are covered by Prop 65. In those cases, Cal/OSHA still permits employers to use their HazCom program to comply. Employers may choose instead to use the new Prop 65 warning signs.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California enacted its Immigrant Worker Protection Act (IWPA) to make it more difficult for federal immigration enforcement agents to access nonpublic areas of employer worksites and private employee records. The U.S. Justice Department, however, recently persuaded a federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction against IWPA provisions that bar employers from voluntarily providing immigration enforcement agents with access to nonpublic worksites and employee records unless federal authorities present a judicial warrant (to access nonpublic worksites) or an administrative or judicial subpoena (to access employee records). In a recent post on Angelo A. Paparelli’s personal blog, the immigration expert extensively analyzes this development and proposes a response that California might pursue.

Angelo argues that the California Attorney General should try to persuade the Federal Court to lift the injunction against these IWPA provisions. He points out that Congress – when passing the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) – never authorized the relevant civil and criminal immigration enforcement activities. Instead, the HSA requires the relevant agency to focus solely on adjudicating requests for immigration benefits such as work and visitor visas, asylum status, green cards, and U.S. citizenship. Angelo maintains that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should respect its lack of enforcement authority and stop sending its investigators to California worksites and stop disrupting businesses and workers in the state.

Seyfarth Synopsis. Pending California legislation would make a mandatory arbitration agreement an unlawful practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and a crime. How could that be consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act?

Under current law, California businesses can insist that employees and contractors enter valid agreements to resolve disputes in front of a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge and jury. These agreements also may waive employee participation in class actions.

California is a repeat offender in making unconstitutional attacks on arbitration agreements. The FAA declares that arbitration agreements are entitled to judicial enforcement to the same extent that contracts generally are. Because federal law thus protects arbitration agreements from discrimination, state laws hostile to arbitration are preempted under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Yet California officials have continued to defy this constitutional reality. On no fewer than five occasions the United States Supreme Court has found it necessary to strike down California statutes or judicial decisions that have discriminated against arbitration agreements. California lawmakers nonetheless remain hostile to these agreements and—like Don Quixote tilting at windmills—continue to sally forth against an invincible foe.

The latest quixotic effort comes in the form of Assembly Bill 3080, sponsored by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher. AB 3080 would forbid businesses to require arbitration in any agreement with an employee or independent contractor entered into on or after January 1, 2019. The bill would prohibit even those agreements that permit an individual to opt out. And the bill has bite: it would amend the FEHA to authorize discrimination lawsuits against businesses that require arbitration agreements, and it would place its substantive provisions within an article of the Labor Code that subjects any violator to criminal prosecution.

Now, we know what you’re thinking: how could such a measure possibly pass constitutional muster, and isn’t the bill so ridiculous that it would never pass in the first place? Take the second question first: Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher has repeatedly authored bills that have become law over strenuous objections of the California Chamber of Commerce. Her legislative track record is impressive. And her colleagues in Sacramento are not known for rebuffing the entreaties of the plaintiffs’ bar—who have never much liked arbitration.

As to the federal constitutional issue, however, your question is powerful, as the defenses offered for AB 3080 are unsound. The first defense is that the bill would affect only mandatory agreements (though the bill, in an Orwellian twist, would consider an agreement mandatory even if it provides for an opportunity to opt out of it). This defense ignores the point that courts routinely have invoked the FAA to protect arbitration agreements imposed as a condition of employment. Contracts presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis—and accepted either formally or through continued employment—are fully enforceable so long as they are not unreasonably one-sided, and arbitration agreements can meet that test. FAA preemption thus applies regardless of whether the arbitration agreement is called “mandatory” or “voluntary.”

The second defense of AB 3080 is likewise disingenuous. This defense notes that AB 3080 does not expressly declare arbitration agreements unenforceable, and suggests that judicial enforceability really is all that the FAA is about. And, this defense continues, “What would be the harm of the new law, anyway? Couldn’t we just wait to see how a court rules on it?”

This defense disregards Supreme Court teaching, which holds that the FAA preempts any state law that “stands as an obstacle” to enforcing arbitration agreements. (It was this rationale that the Supreme Court invoked to foil California’s attempt to ban class-action waivers in arbitration agreements.) AB 3080 would threaten to turn employers into criminals—and to subject them to discrimination lawsuits—merely for making arbitration a condition of employment. How could creating that in terrorem effect for businesses not be creating an obstacle to enforcement of arbitration agreements?

And why should a business be required to risk criminal sanctions or a lawsuit, or both, if it wants to insist that employees and independent contractors agree to a fair form of dispute resolution that is cheaper and quicker than formal litigation?

One might think that persons threatened by encroachments upon their federally protected rights would have the full-throated support of the entire legal community. But not so here, even though AB 3080 would create for California businesses the prospect of civil and criminal actions that would chill the exercise of a federally guaranteed freedom to contract. The constitutional demise of AB 3080—should it become law—is inevitable, once the matter reaches a court. But would the new law’s threats to contracting businesses so discourage arbitration agreements that the issue never gets there?

Perhaps it’s too soon to fret. Recall that Governor Brown, in 2015, vetoed a bill that would have made California the first state to ban arbitration agreements imposed as a condition of employment. He noted that employees in arbitrations enjoy “numerous protections” and that the Legislature’s “far-reaching approach” was one of the sort that courts had struck down in other jurisdictions. He also wanted to await the wisdom of arbitration cases then pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Events since 2015 have only confirmed the view that state laws discriminating against arbitration agreements are unconstitutional. It remains to be seen whether Governor Brown, if presented with a passed version of AB 3080, will use his veto again or will instead leave the defense of mandatory arbitration agreements in the hands of California businesses that are principled and hardy enough to risk civil and criminal sanctions while defending their federal right to contract.

Non-California employers with non-exempt workers who work in California will be interested in the following piece, originally posted on Seyfarth’s Wage Hour Litigation Blog.

Seyfarth Summary: On July 12, 2018, the California Supreme Court agreed to address questions posed by the Ninth Circuit about whether California Labor Code provisions apply to an out-of-state employer whose employees work part of their time in California. Nationwide employers with employees jetting in to work temporarily in California need to return their seats to an upright position and follow this developing story.

Is your business flying high in the current economy? Profits reaching new altitudes? Maybe you have employees residing in one state while working in another. If some work occasionally in California, prepare to fasten your seatbelts for a potentially rough landing. Even if your employees work in California only intermittently (think partial days), and even if your company is not headquartered in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court may soon bring you down to earth.

Background

Traditionally, employers in paying their employees have applied the wage and hour law of the state where the employee sides or most often works, even if the employee occasionally works in another state. In California, however, the rules are peculiar.

In a 2011 decision, Sullivan v. Oracle, the California Supreme Court held that non-California residents working in California for a California-based employer were subject to California daily overtime laws if they performed their in-state work for whole days. Oracle left employers up in the air as to whether California law would apply in other contexts, such as (a) when non-California residents work partial days of work in California, (b) when the employees worked for non-California based employers, or (c) when the wage and hour provisions at issue were something other than the cal-peculiar rules on daily overtime.

The Certified Questions

Which brings us to the current Ninth Circuit cases. Specifically, in three airline cases raising California issues in federal court (two cases against United Airlines, one against Delta), the Ninth Circuit requested the California Supreme Court to address five questions, paraphrased below:

(1) Does the federal Railway Labor Act exemption found in Wage Order 9 bar a wage-statement claim (Labor Code § 226) by an employee who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement?

(2) Does Section 226 apply to wage statements that an out-of-state employer provides to an employee who resides in California, who receives pay in California, and who pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California?

(3) Does Section 226 and Labor Code § 204 (governing timely wage payments to current employees) apply to payments that an out-of-state employer makes to an employee who, in the relevant period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?

(4) Does California minimum wage law apply to out-of-state employers for the California work that their employees perform in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?

(5) Does California’s peculiar rule preventing pay-averaging for employees paid by commission or piece rate apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but that does not always award pay credit for all hours on duty?

In the underlying lawsuits, United pilots and Delta flight attendants claim that the airlines violated California Labor Code provisions on wage statements, minimum wage, and the timing and completeness of wage payments. United (based in Chicago) and Delta (based in Atlanta) both won at the district court level, successfully arguing that de minimis work within California does not trigger California law, especially when (i) the employers are not based in California, (ii) the employees work only limited amounts of time in the state, and (iii) the employees mostly work in federal air space and in multiple jurisdictions during a single pay period or even a single day.

Why Does This Matter to Employers Based Outside California?

The guidance that the California Supreme Court will issue may ensnare non-California employers in a complex web of Labor Code laws for employees who work in California only sporadically, or who merely stop in California on their way to other work locations. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will stretch to apply California’s peculiar rules on wage statements, daily overtime, and minimum wage to such transitory California work. Or whether California rules on meal and rest beaks, or paid sick time, might also be implicated.

Based on recent emanations from our high court, we would not be surprised to see another extension of California’s employee-protective laws. Any such extension would be highly problematic in light of California’s robust civil and statutory penalties for Labor Code violations. The state’s Private Attorneys General Act authorizes penalty lawsuits brought on a representative basis on behalf of all “aggrieved employees or former employees.” While we do not predict that California will attempt to regulate employment of individuals who merely fly through California airspace, all employers with employees having feet on the ground in California need to sit up, return their tray tables to their original position, and be alert to these pending decisions.

Workplace Solution: The California Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the certified questions will not come down for many months. In the meanwhile, sit back, enjoy the flight, and watch this space for further developments. Feel free to contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney if you would like to discuss.

We are pleased to cross-post with our sister blog, Pay Equity Microblog, the following important and timely blog post regarding the latest in California pay equity legislation.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California Governor Brown signed into law yesterday Assembly Bill No. 2282 to clarify previously passed legislation that prohibits inquiries into an applicant’s salary history. Read on for a recap of Assembly Bill No. 2282.

When AB 168 was signed into law in October 2017, California prohibited employers from asking job applicants for “salary history information.” Under this legislation, California employers must provide “applicants” with the “pay scale” for a position upon “reasonable request.” The law was rather unclear, however, about what each of these three terms meant. On July 18, 2018, Governor Brown signed new legislation, Assembly Bill 2282, designed to clarify those terms and other items in AB 168.

For example, under AB 168, it was not clear whether the term “applicant” meant only external applicants for a position or also current employees applying for the position. AB 2282 clarifies that an “applicant” is an individual who seeks employment with the employer, not a current employee.

Next, it was not clear what information an employer would have to supply when a reasonable request was made for the “pay scale” of a position. AB 2282 defines “pay scale” as a salary or hourly wage range and clarifies that the definition of “pay scale” does not include bonuses or equity ranges.

AB 2282 also clarifies what constitutes a “reasonable request” for pay scale information. A “reasonable request” is defined as a request made after the applicant has completed the initial interview.

Additionally, AB 2282 clarifies that although AB 168 prohibits employers from asking for the applicant’s salary history information, employers may ask about an applicant’s salary expectations for the position.

The new legislation addresses aspects of the California Equal Pay Act as well. It was unclear under what circumstances an employer could use prior salary to justify a disparity in pay. The new legislation attempts to clarify this: “Prior salary shall not justify any disparity in compensation. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to mean that an employer may not make a compensation decision based on a current employee’s existing salary, so long as any wage differential resulting from that compensation decision is justified by one or more of the factors listed in this subdivision.” Those factors are (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; and (4) a bona fide factor other than race or ethnicity, such as education, training, or experience.

For Seyfarth’s full 2018 California Legislative Update, please click here.

Our readers may be interested in the latest developments concerning California’s sanctuary state laws, and their impact on California employers. Read on for a recent posting on our sister blog: BIG Immigration Law Blog.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Legislature, Governor Jerry Brown, and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have aggressively asserted the state’s rights under the U.S. Constitution and traditional police powers to protect all state residents, including undocumented immigrants, from the comparably aggressive immigration enforcement actions of the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. This foreseeable clash of federal supremacy versus states’ rights resulted in a recent request by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in U.S. v.  California for a preliminary injunction against three recent California statutes regulating and reporting on U.S.-California information sharing and the conditions in state detention facilities housing noncitizens (California Assembly Bill AB 103 and Senate Bill SB 54), and limiting the cooperation that California employers may provide to federal immigration enforcement agents (California assembly Bill AB 450). On July 4, 2018 Federal District Judge John A. Mendez issued an order refusing to enjoin AB 103 and SB 54, as well as certain employee-notice rights in AB 450, while granting a preliminary injunction on the rest of AB 450. Proceedings in U.S. v.  California will continue as federal and California authorities continue to clash over other issues such as California’s Evidence-Code ban on disclosure of immigration status in state court proceedings (Senate Bill 785) and federal refusal to provide California with law enforcement grant funding because of its status as a “Sanctuary State.”

The familiar lines were drawn. Combatants clashed in a war of words, competing governance philosophies, conflicting laws, and judicial challenges – all in an age-old constitutional battle of federal power versus states’ rights.

This time around, however, the roles were reversed. Version 2018 is unlike the 1960s when extreme-right southern conservatives, claiming to champion states’ rights, defied but ultimately failed to stop federal efforts to protect civil rights. This time, the state of California passed three statutes under its police powers with the avowed purpose of promoting public safety and protecting undocumented state residents against a determined army of newly-unshackled federal immigration enforcement officers. And this time, the state mostly won.

By enacting three new California laws – Assembly Bills, AB 103 and AB 450, and Senate Bill (SB) 54 – state legislators responded to aggressive federal immigration enforcement activities in the Golden State that they viewed as serious threats to community policing, public safety, and the state’s sizzling, low-unemployment economy.

AB 103 – effective June 27, 2017 – added California Government Code § 12532, directing the state Attorney General to conduct a review and report on county, local, or private locked detention facilities housing noncitizens within the state for civil violations of federal immigration laws. The AG must review and issue a report to the California legislature, Governor and the public by March 1, 2019, and must address conditions of confinement at each facility, due process and care provided to detainees, and the circumstances leading to their apprehension and placement in the facility. To permit this review, AB 103 mandates that the AG be provided with access to each facility, detainees, officials, personnel, and records.

AB 450 – effective January 1, 2018 – the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act” (IWPA), as I wrote in an earlier blog post, “AB 450: California’s Law of Unintended Immigration Consequences” – prohibits California employers (on pain of civil fines) from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agents at the worksite unless cooperation is required by federal immigration law.  Specifically, IWPA prohibits California-based employers from:

  • voluntarily granting immigration enforcement agents access to any non-public areas of a worksite unless the agents present a judicial warrant.
  • voluntarily allowing immigration enforcement agents to access, review, or obtain any employee records unless the agents present a Notice of Inspection (NOI) of Forms I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verifications), an administrative or judicial subpoena, or a judicial warrant requiring compliance.
  • reverifying the employment eligibility of any current employee unless required by federal law.

IWPA also requires employers served with an I-9 NOI to give notice in writing within 72 hours to each current employee at the worksite and any authorized labor union that an I-9 inspection has begun, and notify any affected employee or authorized union rep – again within 72 hours of receiving any subsequent I-9 related federal notices –  “of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the results of the inspection of I-9 . . . forms or other employment records” (the AB 450 Notice requirements).

Senate Bill (SB) 54 – enacted October 05, 2017, and popularly titled the “California Sanctuary State Law”  – is a comprehensive statute which, among other things, prohibits California law enforcement authorities from sharing a wide variety of information on persons in state custody, including the release date of a detained noncitizen, and from transferring the individual to federal authorities unless he or she has been convicted of certain crimes or unless authorized by a judicial warrant or a judicial probable-cause determination.

Predictably, U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III threw down the gauntlet. The U.S. Justice Department filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of California, requested a preliminary injunction, offered supporting declarations of senior officials in the State Department (Carl S. Risch) and DHS (Thomas D. Homan, Todd Hoffman and Rodney S. Scott). DOJ attorneys argued to Federal Judge John A. Mendez that these new California laws unconstitutionally usurp federal supremacy and sovereignty over control of the nation’s borders. Not shrinking from the fight, California AG Becerra filed a formal opposition to the request for preliminary injunction, a motion to dismiss the suit, and a legal brief.

Ironically, on Independence Day, Judge Mendez issued his momentous, carefully considered decision (a 60-page whopper), ruling that:

  • No preliminary injunction would issue against AB 103, SB 54, and the AB 450 Notice requirements, because they do not trench upon federal authority over immigration.
  • As for rest of AB 450, California authorities are preliminarily enjoined from:
    • fining employers or otherwise enforcing the bans on reverifying the employment eligibility of current employees,
    • voluntarily giving immigration enforcement agents access to nonpublic areas of the worksite, or
    • allowing them to access, review, or obtain employee records.

Sounding a note of somber exasperation, Judge Mendez implored the two political branches to act:

This Court has gone to great lengths to explain the legal grounds for its opinion. This Order hopefully will not be viewed through a political lens and this Court expresses no views on the soundness of the policies or statutes involved in this lawsuit. There is no place for politics in our judicial system and this one opinion will neither define nor solve the complicated immigration issues currently facing our Nation.

As noted in the Introduction to this Order, this case is about the proper application of constitutional principles to a specific factual situation. The Court reached its decision only after a careful and considered application of legal precedent. The Court did so without concern for any possible political consequences. It is a luxury, of course, that members of the other two branches of government do not share. But if there is going to be a long-term solution to the problems our country faces with respect to immigration policy. it can only come from our legislative and executive branches. It cannot and will not come from piecemeal opinions issued by the judicial branch. Accordingly, this Court joins the ever-growing chorus of Federal Judges in urging our elected officials to set aside the partisan and polarizing politics dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that addresses this critical political issue. Our Nation deserves it. Our Constitution demands it.

U.S. v. California, Judge Mendez’s case, will continue to final judgment and injunctive orders.  Meantime, however, the federal/California square-off over immigration enforcement is only in the early rounds.  California has just shot additional volleys.

  • The latest California law, SB 785 – enacted with immediate effect on May 17, 2018 – prohibits the disclosure of an individual’s immigration status in open court, unless the party seeking to introduce it first persuades a judge in a private, in camera hearing, that such evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible. SB 785 was enacted in response to recent ICE arrests of immigrants in California courthouses, despite the March 2017 admonition of California Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, AG Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, reminding them that:

Our courthouses serve as a vital forum for ensuring access to justice and protecting public safety. Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country’s immigration laws.

  • In State of California, ex rel, Xavier Becerra v. Jefferson B.  Sessions, et al., the state filed a July 9, 2018 motion for summary judgment and legal brief, supported by 13 declarations, requesting a nationwide injunction against imposition of immigration enforcement conditions on federal grants for state and local law enforcement. In a contemporaneous press release, AG Becerra’s office asserted that:

[The U.S. Justice Department has] unlawfully withheld California’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant funds, which the State uses to support a task force that combats large-scale drug trafficking. California’s motion seeks to have the court enjoin the federal government’s unlawful conditions for all jurisdictions and compel the issuance of JAG funding to all eligible jurisdictions in the United States that have yet to receive it, as well as to restore COPS funding to California.

* * *

Although Congress apparently has no stomach for comprehensive immigration reform, despite the overwhelming popular view that reform is necessary, the judicial battle between the world’s first and fifth largest economies continues unabated.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As recent triple-digit temps have shown, California is still one of the hottest places to be—literally. Today’s post reminds all employers, especially with employees who work outdoors or in open-air environments, that OSHA, Cal-OSHA, and the California Labor Code all prescribe protections from the heat.

California rest and recovery breaks.

California employers must provide non-exempt employees with a paid 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Refresh your recollection of the rest-break requirement here. And employers in certain industries should recall their additional obligations to help outdoor workers avoid heat-related illnesses by providing water, shade, and additional rest breaks, as required by California’s regulations.

The heat illness prevention regulations

Who is subject to heat illness prevention regulations? Anyone with outside workers, but the list of industries commonly affected includes:

  • Agriculture
  • Construction
  • Landscaping
  • Oil and gas extraction
  • Transportation or delivery

What does California require regarding outdoor places of employment? Employers must establish, implement, and maintain an effective heat illness prevention plan for outdoor workers. The Department of Industrial Relations offers detailed instructions and tips to help employers comply with state laws. Below are some main concerns:

Drinking Water. In addition to mandatory break periods, employees must have access to potable water that is “fresh, pure, suitably cool, and provided free of charge.”

Shade. If temperatures exceed 80° F, employers must maintain an area with shade at all times that is either open to the air or provides ventilation or cooling.

High-heat procedures. When temperatures exceed 95° F, employees in the industries specifically listed above must be given a minimum 10-minute cooldown period every two hours. These breaks may be concurrent with meal or other rest periods when the timing aligns properly.

What should I do if a worker suffers from heat-related illness? If a worker shows any signs of heat-related illness, a supervisor should be prepared to respond with first aid or other medical intervention—and should not permit a worker showing any symptoms of heat-related illness to resume working until the worker has sufficiently recovered from the symptoms.

Federal OSHA guidance

Federal laws and regulations, of course, also apply in California. The attached Management Alert contains some timely information about the four types of heat illness and what you can do to protect yourselves and your employees from this hazard.

Workplace Solution: Stay aware of the potential for heat illness in the workplace, and the steps needed to reduce the danger. Please feel free to reach out to your favorite Seyfarth lawyer if you have any questions, and as you continue to enjoy the summer.

Seyfarth Synopsis: It has long been clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California law protect employees who suffer from alcoholism if it qualifies as a “disability.” Although courts have recognized the right of an employer to have legitimate work rules that prohibit alcohol use in the workplace, the line between having a protected disability and engaging in unprotected conduct is not always clear. The distinction is critical because protected alcoholics may be entitled to reasonable accommodations and leaves of absence under federal and state laws.

With the opioid crisis dominating the news, employers are understandably concerned about the misuse of prescription drugs and the impact that addiction has on their business, employees and the general public. But let’s not forget about alcohol. According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, 17.6 million people—or one in every 12 adults—suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence, along with several million more who engage in “risky, binge drinking patterns that could lead to alcohol problems.” The Council also reports that workers with alcohol problems are 2.7 times more likely to have injury-related absences, and approximately 24% of workers have admitted to drinking on the job.

The data might be clear, but the solution is not. Workplace alcoholism presents a variety of issues, especially in California, which goes beyond the ADA in protecting alcoholics in recovery. Correctly navigating California’s discrimination and leave laws is crucial not only for helping to avoid litigation, but also for ensuring a safe environment for all employees.

When Is Alcoholism Considered A Disability?

Under the ADA, individuals who abuse alcohol may be considered disabled if the person is an alcoholic or a recovering alcoholic. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also treats alcoholism as a disability. California liberally defines protected “disability” to include impairments that only “limit” (rather than “substantially limit” as required under the ADA) the ability to work. Of course, both laws make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against individuals based on the mistaken belief the person is an alcoholic (i.e., “regarding” someone as disabled).

Leave Rules for Alcohol-Related Disabilities

The California Family Rights Act entitles employees to up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave for alcohol-related disabilities. After the 12 weeks, extended leaves of absence may be a further, reasonable accommodation under both California and federal law. Employers may also have to accommodate alcoholic employees when they return to (or remain in) the workplace, which may include granting time off or intermittent leave to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings or other support groups.

California’s Labor Code also has a chapter entitled “Alcoholic and Drug Rehabilitation” (Labor Code §§ 1025 to 1028), which requires a private employer with 25 or more employees to accommodate an employee who voluntarily requests to enter and participate in an alcohol rehabilitation program. Such a request may be denied only if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. What is unclear is how many times an employee can request such an accommodation, and whether an employer can require an employee to execute a “Last Chance Agreement” to prevent abuse of Labor Code section 1025. Employers should consider consulting experienced employment counsel before presenting an employee with such an agreement and acting on any violations of it.

So, Can My Company Prohibit Alcohol Use At Work?

All of this said, California law does not prohibit an employer from implementing and enforcing rules regarding alcohol in the workplace.

A guidance memorandum issued by the federal EEOC explained in a hypothetical that if an employee blames her tardiness on her drinking and states that she would like to check in to a treatment center, the employer can discipline the employee for being tardy, but also may have to grant the employee a leave of absence as an accommodation to seek treatment.

The California Labor Code also expressly states that the law does not “prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or discharging an employee who, because of the current employee’s use of alcohol or drugs, is unable to perform his or her duties, or cannot perform the duties in a manner which would not endanger his or her health or safety or the health or safety of others.”

Even so, employers must tread carefully so as to avoid a claim that any action taken is based on the employee’s protected alcoholism rather than a violation of work rules.

Workplace Solutions:  There is no doubt that alcoholism adversely affects those who suffer from it as well as employers and their businesses. Correctly navigating employment laws governing what you can and cannot do as an employer is challenging. A few points to consider:

  • Establish a policy against alcohol use in the workplace, which addresses when alcohol consumption is permitted or prohibited and highlights the availability of rehabilitation services and any employee assistance program.
  • Educate those responsible for engaging in the interactive process about the proper questions to ask, being careful to avoid questions likely to elicit information about alcoholism, which could be deemed an improper inquiry into someone’s disability. This also could be an issue if an applicant or employee has alcohol-related convictions.
  • Implement a drug and alcohol testing policy that allows for post-accident and reasonable suspicion testing.
  • Educate supervisors and managers about the signs of alcohol use and abuse, and steps for reporting any suspicious behavior. Such training is important for those who will determine whether an employee will be tested based on the reasonable suspicion of abuse.
  • Provide assistance to those suffering from alcoholism instead of discharging them. As mentioned, alcoholism may be a protected disability, thus triggering your duty to engage in the interactive process and to reasonably accommodate an employee suffering from alcoholism.