Seyfarth Synopsis: Employment-related cases pending before the California Supreme Court concern various questions that sometimes seem technical, but the answers they elicit will have big consequences. Questions raised by the current crop of cases include standing to sue, the availability of certain claims and remedies, federal preemption of California laws, what counts as compensable time, and—that perennial favorite—how to interpret the infernal PAGA statute.

We expect the California Supreme Court in 2019 to issue decisions addressing many important issues in private employment. Some topics easily warrant their own article or blog post, and will receive that treatment as the Supreme Court’s decisions emerge. But it’s not too soon to highlight some coming attractions.

Anti-SLAPP and Alleged Employer Motive

  • Is an employer’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike an employee’s suit affected by the employer’s alleged discriminatory motive? In Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., the Supreme Court has agreed to decide “whether an employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation arise from protected activity for purposes of a special motion to strike,” and “what is the relevance of an allegation that the employer acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive?”

Application of CA Wage-Hour Law to Out-of-State Employers

  • Does California employment law apply to non-California residents who work in California on a transitory basis? In Ward v. United Airlines and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, the Supreme Court has accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to address five questions:
    • (1) “Does California Labor Code section 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state?”
    • (2) Does the exemption in Wage Order 9 for collective bargaining agreements (CBA) under the Railway Labor Act bar a wage statement claim brought under California Labor Code section 226 by an employee who is covered by such a CBA?
    • (3) “Do California Labor Code sections 204 and 226 apply to wage payments and wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who, in the relevant pay period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?”
    • (4) “Does California minimum wage law apply to all work performed in California for an out-of-state employer by an employee who works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?”
    • (5) “Does the Armenta/Gonzalez bar on averaging wages apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but which, in certain situations resulting in higher pay, does not award credit for all hours on duty?

Arbitration

  • When is an arbitration remedy broad enough to preclude an employee’s resort to a Berman hearing? Under existing law, employers cannot necessarily compel employees to arbitrate wage claims unless and until employees have had the chance to bring those claims before the Labor Commissioner in a “Berman hearing.” In OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide these issues:
    • “(1) Was the arbitration remedy at issue in this case sufficiently affordable and accessible within the meaning of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) … to require the company’s employees to forego the right to an administrative Berman hearing on wage claims?
    • (2) Did the employer waive its right to bypass the Berman hearing by waiting until the morning of that hearing, serving a demand for arbitration, and refusing to participate in the hearing?”

Compensability

  • Does an employee engage in compensable work while waiting for the employer to inspect a bag the employee chose to bring to work? In Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the Supreme Court has accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to decide this issue: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7?”
  • Is walking to and from a time clock compensable hours worked? In Stoetzl v. State of California, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this issue: “Does the definition of ‘hours worked’ found in the Industrial Wage Commission’s Wage Order 4, as opposed to the definition of that term found in the federal Labor Standards Act, constitute the controlling legal standard for determining the compensability of time that correctional employees spend after signing in for duty and before signing out but before they arrive at and after they leave their actual work posts within a correctional facility?”

Liability for Wage Payment

Preemption—By the FAA and the LMRA

  • Is a PAGA suit for unpaid wages immune from arbitration? In its 2014 Iskanian case, the California Supreme Court acknowledged that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws against class-action waivers in arbitration agreements, but also held that representative PAGA actions are not subject to mandatory arbitration. Now, in Lawson v. Z.B., N.A., the Supreme Court has decide to whether a representative action under PAGA, seeking recovery of individualized lost wages as civil penalties under Labor Code section 558, falls within the preemptive scope of the FAA.
  • Does federal labor law preempt a claim for termination wages? In Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Associates, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this issue: “Is plaintiffs’ statutory wage claim under Labor Code section 201 subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because it requires the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement?”

Remedies

  • Can an employee seeking unpaid wages use the tort of conversion? In Voris v. Lampert, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this issue: “Is conversion of earned but unpaid wages a valid cause of action?”

Rest Breaks & Meal Periods

  • Rest breaks for ambulance attendants on 24-hours shifts. In Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc., the Supreme Court accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to decide these issues: (1) “Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, is an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts required to relieve attendants of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to be available to respond to an emergency call if one arises during a rest period?: (2) “Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, may an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts require attendants to be available to respond to emergency calls during their meal periods without a written agreement that contains an on-duty meal period revocation clause? If such a clause is required, will a general at-will employment clause satisfy this requirement?” (3) “Do violations of meal period regulations, which require payment of a ‘premium wage’ for each improper meal period, give rise to claims under sections 203 and 226 of the California Labor Code where the employer does not include the premium wage in the employee’s pay or pay statements during the course of the violations?”

Standing for PAGA Claims

  • Can a PAGA plaintiff settle his individual wage and hour claims and still pursue his PAGA action as an “aggrieved employee”? In Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether an employee bringing an action under PAGA loses standing to pursue representative claims as an “aggrieved employee” by dismissing his or her individual claims against the employer.

Workplace solution. Some of the issues raised by the above cases may seem relatively minor, technical, or limited to particular industries. Yet many a significant class action has turned upon issues no more monumental. We will keep our eyes and ears on the Court’s progress and keep readers updated with the latest developments.

Seyfarth Synopsis: In vetoing the California Legislature’s attempt to criminalize arbitration agreements (AB 3080), Governor Brown displayed common sense and the legal learning provided by recent U.S. Supreme Court authority.

Haven’t high courts already upheld mandatory arbitration agreements?

Yes, they have. The California and U.S. Supreme Courts have repeatedly ruled that employers may require employees to enter valid arbitration agreements (waiving the right to judge and jury trial). The most recent vindication of arbitration agreements was the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in Epic Systems, which upheld the enforceability of an arbitration agreement that waived participation in class waivers, against an argument that such a waiver violated employee rights to concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Hasn’t the California Legislature got the message?

Apparently not yet. The Legislature has tried again and again to outlaw arbitration agreements in ever more inventive ways, notwithstanding the clear authority to the contrary. Governor Brown, meanwhile, has learned that these efforts will not pass constitutional muster. In 2014, Governor Brown signed into law AB 2617, which outlawed mandatory arbitrations for goods and services; but a March 2018 appellate decision held that the law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Meanwhile, in 2015, Governor Brown vetoed AB 465, which would have outlawed mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment. In doing so, Governor Brown noted that bans on arbitration have been consistently struck down as violating the FAA, and that California courts have made arbitrations more employee-friendly by requiring certain protections (neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery, no limit on damages or remedies, written decision subject to some review, cost limits). He even questioned whether arbitration is really less fair than traditional litigation for employees.

While Governor Brown’s learning curve has progressed, the California Legislature’s has regressed, as evidenced by AB 3080

In August 2018—just three months after the Epic Systems decision—the Legislature passed AB 3080, which banned mandatory arbitration agreements, which outlawed “opt-out” provisions (allowing employees to refuse to enter into arbitration agreements), and which even criminalized employer conduct to implement such an agreement. The legislative committee analyses argued that there must be “consent and fairness” in entering into an agreement, that the Supreme Court “has never ruled that the FAA applies in the absence of a valid agreement,” that the FAA would not preempt AB 3080 because it “regulates behavior prior to an agreement being reach[ed],” and that AB 3080 does not “outright ban or invalidate arbitration agreements.”

The apoplectic reaction to the outrage that was AB 3080

The employer community reacted strongly to AB 3080. Leading law firms urged Governor Brown to veto AB 3080. They noted that the proponents were making old, tired arguments that the U.S. and California Supreme Courts have rejected. They protested the disingenuousness of saying that arbitration agreements could not be voluntary even where employees have the right to opt out. They reminded Governor Brown of his veto of AB 465 in 2015.

Most emphatically, they pointed out that criminalizing employer conduct that the FAA so clearly protects could coerce fearful employers into abandoning arbitration agreements until the courts clearly rule AB 3080 unconstitutional. In this respect the Legislature, ironically, was engaging in something that a private party could not do without engaging in an unfair business practice. After all, an unfair business practice occurs when a party inserts an obviously unlawful provision into a contract, aiming to intimidate the other party into abiding by the unlawful provision.

Governor Brown’s veto and what’s next

On September 30, 2018, Governor Brown vetoed AB 3080. His accompanying letter rejected the Legislature’s argument that AB 3080 only regulates behavior prior to an agreement being reached. The Governor pointed out that in a 2017 Supreme Court decision, even Justice Kagan (“an appointee of President Obama”) acknowledged that the FAA “cares not only about the ‘enforcement’ of arbitration agreements, but also about their initial ‘valid[ity].’ ” Governor Brown emphatically stated that AB 3080 “plainly violates federal law.”

So what does all this mean? The lesson is that our systems of checks and balances can still work, where a governor learns not to permit a legislature to flout federal law. Will this trend continue as our great state ushers in a new governor in 2019? Stay tuned.

Webinar Reminder

Don’t forget to sign up and attend our complimentary webinar on October 10, 2018 for a discussion of all of the newly-enacted employment-related laws, and implications for employers.

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.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California courts are often hostile towards defendants that seek to require litigious employees to honor their arbitration agreements. The defendant’s plight might seem more stark still if the defendant has not itself signed the agreement. But defendant employers still have means of enforcing such agreements, which can be especially significant in class actions claiming joint employment. 

Despite the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, it is no secret that enforcing arbitration agreements in California can be tough. The task is tougher yet for the defendant that finds itself being sued by someone with whom the defendant has never had a contractual relationship, although she has signed an employment arbitration agreement with a co-defendant. This is because, under the general rule, one must be a party to an arbitration agreement in order to invoke it.

With recent waves of litigation seeking to expand the scope of joint employment, the issue of enforcing arbitration agreements on behalf of nonsignatories has become increasingly important. One typical situation involves a staffing company being sued by an employee who, looking for a deeper pocket, also sues the staffing company’s client. In another typical situation, a franchisee’s employee sues both the franchisee and the franchisor. Suppose, in both situations, the employer and the employee have agreed to arbitrate any claims between them. But in both situations, the upstream defendant (in our situations, the client or the franchisor) has never had a chance to negotiate an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and the upstream defendant have never had any contractual relationship at all. In those cases, the upstream defendant experiences the worst of both worlds: it is being sued as the plaintiff’s “employer” and yet, not really being the plaintiff’s employer, the upstream defendant has never had the chance to implement an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff.

As it turns out, there is hope for enforcing the arbitration agreement on behalf of the upstream defendant in these situations, even though it never signed the agreement. There are three exceptions to the nonsignatory rule. Application of the first two can depend on how the claim is pleaded. Application of the third is relatively sure, if the upstream defendant plans properly to assure itself that the arbitration agreement in place is adequate. We discuss each of the three exceptions below.

Agency

Nonsignatories may enforce an arbitration agreement under an agency theory. If the plaintiff claims that a defendant acted as the agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, then the non-party defendant may enforce the agreement. This claim often arises where the plaintiff alleges that the non-signatory defendant was a joint employer. Earlier this year, a California appellate case upheld the enforcement of an arbitration agreement under this very theory. Employers seeking to avail themselves of this theory should carefully evaluate the allegations in the complaint against them. If they meet these standards, then asserting an agency theory may be a successful way to enforce the agreement.

Equitable Estoppel

A lesser known exception available to nonsignatories seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement is equitable estoppel: a nonsignatory defendant can compel the signatory plaintiff into arbitration when the claims against the nonsignatory are “intimately founded and inextricably intertwined” with the underlying contract obligations. Equitable estoppel applies when the claims are based on the same facts and inherently inseparable from the arbitrable claims against the signatory defendant. A California court recently acknowledged this theory in the employment context, particularly because the plaintiff made no effort to distinguish between his claims against his employer (the signatory) and the non-signatory defendant.

Again, when considering raising this argument, it is important to carefully analyze the allegations in the complaint. Should they be the same against all defendants, equitable estoppel may be an option for enforcing the agreement.

Third Party Beneficiary

While the first two ways for a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration agreement may depend on how the plaintiff pleads the case, a more certain basis for enforcement exists where the language of the arbitration agreement clearly expresses an intent to allow nonsignatories to enforce it. The intent to thus benefit a third party can appear even if the agreement does not specifically identify the third party by name. It would be enough if the third party belongs to the class of clearly identified beneficiaries.

The third-party beneficiary exception places a premium on the adequacy of the arbitration agreement’s language. The employer that signed the agreement—the staffing agency, for example, or the franchisee—will have every incentive, as a good corporate citizen, to see that its arbitration agreement benefits not just itself but also potential upstream defendants, such as the staffing agency’s client or the franchisee’s franchisor. And the potential upstream defendant, of course, will be more inclined to deal with a potential joint employer if that employer has in place an adequate arbitration agreement that properly addresses issues of enforcement and that provides, where appropriate, for waiver of class or collective or representative arbitration.

Navigating issues enforcing arbitration agreements in California can be complicated. If you would like assistance in drafting an agreement or help enforcing an agreement in the defense of a lawsuit, please contact one of Seyfarth Shaw’s attorneys.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers in California: be aware and prepare for new laws increasing minimum wages and mandating overtime pay for agricultural employees; expanding the California Fair Pay Act to race and ethnicity and to address prior salary consideration; imposing new restrictions on background checks and gig economy workers; and more. Small employers will be relieved the Governor vetoed expanded unpaid parental leave, but it will likely return in future sessions.

Friday, September 30, was Governor Jerry Brown’s deadline to sign or veto bills approved during the 2015-2016 Legislative Session. We summarize below this year’s bills that did and did not receive the Governor’s signature. Read on to prepare for our October 6 webinar offering Workplace Solutions for these pesky new Cal-peculiarities and register here.

SIGNED

Pay Equity

Fair Pay Act: Prior Salary & Race/Ethnicity. Saving some high-profile approvals to the last day, on Friday the Governor signed into law AB 1676 and SB 1063.  AB 1676 amends last year’s Fair Pay Act, Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code, to prohibit employers from considering prior salary as the sole justification for any disparity in compensation. SB 1063 expands the Fair Pay Act to race and ethnicity, and responds to critics that the pay equity issue is not limited to gender.  Specifically, it would prohibit employers from paying employees a wage less than the wage paid to employees of a different race or ethnicity for substantially similar work. Since both bills were signed by the Governor, both bills’ substantive changes will become law, though only the last-chaptered bill will be that which officially becomes law.

Before amendments applied in the legislative process, AB 1676 would have prohibited employers from seeking an applicant’s salary history information just as its vetoed predecessor, AB 1017, attempted to do last year. In vetoing AB 1017, Governor Brown stated that we should wait to see whether last year’s momentous Fair Pay Act, SB 358, addressed the pay equity issue before making further changes.  The amendments likely made this amendment palatable to the Governor, and kept California from matching the new Massachusetts law prohibiting Massachusetts employers from requesting the compensation history of a prospective employee before making an offer, unless the prospective employee has “voluntarily” disclosed that information. Amends Labor Code Sections 1197.5 and 1199.5. Effective January 1, 2017.

Wage and Hour

Agricultural Workers. AB 1066  enacts the “Phase-In Overtime for Agricultural Workers Act of 2016,” which requires employers to pay agricultural workers overtime over a four-year phase-in process. Beginning January 1, 2019, employers are required to pay overtime for any hours worked over 9.5 hours per day or 55 hours per workweek. Each year the hours worked triggering overtime pay will reduce, until reaching 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, beginning January 1, 2022. Also beginning on January 1, 2022, any employee who works over 12 hours per day must be paid at a rate no less than double the regular rate of pay. The Governor may temporarily suspend the scheduled overtime requirement but only if the minimum wage increases are suspended as well. Employers that employ 25 or fewer employees will have an extra three years to comply with the phase-in and must begin paying overtime by January 1, 2022.  This bill began as AB 2757, which failed to pass the house of origin in June.  Undeterred, author Assembly Member Lorena Gonzales resurrected it with the legislative “gut and amend” trick, putting its contents into a bill formerly relating to educational employees.  Amends Labor Code Section 554 and adds Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 857) to Part 2 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Minimum Wage Violation Challenges. AB 2899 requires that any employer, before appealing a decision by the Labor Commissioner (LC) relating to a violation of wage laws, must file a bond—in favor of the unpaid employee—with the LC that covers the total amount of any minimum wages, liquidated damages, and overtime compensation owed. The bill also provides that the total amount of the bond is to be forfeited to the employee if the employer fails to pay the amounts owed within 10 days from the conclusion of the proceedings. Amends Labor Code Section 1197.1. Effective January 1, 2017.

Itemized Wage Statements. AB 2535 comes on the heels of the recent federal decision, Garnett v. ADT,  and clarifies Labor Code section 226. This bill specifies that employers need not list the number of hours worked on wage statements for any employee who is exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements under the applicable IWC Wage Order or under statutes specified in Labor Code Section 226(j). Amends Labor Code Section 226.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Leaves of Absence

Paid Family Leave Expansion.  AB 908, which the Governor signed on April 11, 2016, increases the amount of benefits paid to employees on paid family leave and state disability leave from the current level of 55 percent to either 60 or 70 percent depending on the applicant’s income.  Read our report on AB 908 hereAffects Sections 2655, 3303, and 2655.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. Effective January 1, 2017, but provisions of the bill not operative until January 1, 2018.

Background Checks

Criminal History. AB 1843 prohibits employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose any information regarding juvenile convictions and seeking or utilizing any information related to juvenile arrests, detentions, or court dispositions as a factor in employment determination. The bill does specify that an employer at a health facility can inquire into an applicant’s juvenile criminal background if a juvenile court made a final ruling or adjudication, that the applicant had committed a felony or misdemeanor relating to sex crimes or certain controlled substances crimes within five years prior to applying for employment. Still, these employers cannot inquire into an applicant’s sealed juvenile criminal records. Read more about existing California law on background checks hereAmends Labor Code Section 432.7.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Unfair Immigration-Related Practices. SB 1001 is a redux of 2015’s AB 1065, which was held in committee (and which we reported on here). SB 1001, like AB 1065, makes it an unlawful employment practice to request more or different documents than required under federal law to verify that an individual is not an unauthorized immigrant, or to refuse to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine, refuse to honor documents or work authorization based on specific status or term that accompanies the authorization to work, or to attempt to reinvestigate or re-verify an incumbent employee’s authorization to work using an unfair immigration-related practice. This year’s bill provision states that job applicants and employees who suffer an “unfair immigration-related practice” can file a complaint with the DLSE for enforcement. The bill provides that a violation of these provisions can result in a penalty of up to $10,000. Adds Section 1019.1 to the Labor Code.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Transportation Network Companies

Background Checks. AB 1289 requires a transportation network company (“TNC”; e.g., Uber) to conduct, or have a third party conduct, criminal background checks on each participating driver. This bill follows a 2014 lawsuit that accused TNCs of misleading customers by suggesting their background checks were the toughest in the industry. The bill also prohibits a TNC from contracting with a driver who is currently registered on the DOJ’s National Sex Offender Public Website; has been convicted of specified felonies within the past seven years; and/or has been convicted, within the past seven years, of misdemeanor assault or battery, domestic violence, or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Adds Section 5445.2 to the Public Utilities Code.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Driving Under the Influence. AB 2687 makes it unlawful for a person to drive a vehicle with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.04% or more when a passenger for hire is in the vehicle. The bill comes as an effort to lower taxi cab and ride sharing service driver’s BAC limit—currently at 0.08%—to the BAC limit of 0.04% as required for commercial motor vehicle drivers. Amends Vehicle Code Sections 23152 and 23153.  Effective July 1, 2018.

Personal Vehicles. AB 2763 defines a personal vehicle, used by a participating driver in a transportation network company, as one that has a passenger capacity of eight persons or less, (including the driver) and is owned, leased, or rented for a term that does not exceed 30 days, or otherwise authorized for use by the participating driver. Amends Public Utilities Code Section 5431.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Discrimination/Harassment

Employment Protections. AB 2337 expands the notice requirement employers with twenty-five or more employees must give to employees regarding domestic violence protections. Specifically, this bill provides that an employer must inform each new employee—and other employees upon request—of the rights protecting employees affected by domestic violence in writing. The Labor Commissioner is charged with developing the form providing notice by July 1, 2017.  Employers are not required to provide notice until the Labor Commissioner posts the form. Amends Labor Code Section 230.1.  Effective July 1, 2017.

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training. AB 1661 requires local agency officials to receive two hours of training and education on sexual harassment prevention within the first six months of taking office or commencing employment. To meet the requirements of this bill, local agency officials, including any member of a legislative body and any elected official of cities and counties, and special districts, must continue to receive this training once every two years. While AB 1661 is specific to local agency officials, AB 1825, enacted in 2004, established the same provisions for the workplace. AB 1661 comes on the heels of various high-profile sexual harassment cases against elected officials. Adds Article 2.4.5 (commencing with Section 53237) to Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government code.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Employment Discrimination. AB 488 allows individuals employed under a special license in a nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility to bring an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for prohibited harassment or discrimination. This bill came as an expansion of AB 1443, enacted in 2014, which extended FEHA’s protections to unpaid interns and volunteers. AB 488 now extends FEHA’s protections to workers with disabilities. Amends Section 12926, and adds Section 12926.05 to, the Government Code. Effective January 1, 2017.

Other Employee Protections

Employment Contracts—Choice of Law and Forum. SB 1241 prohibits an employer from requiring an employee, who resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would either require the employee to litigate or arbitrate employment disputes (1) outside of California or (2) under the laws of another state. The only exception is where the employee was individually represented by a lawyer in negotiating an employment contract. The bill provides that any contract that violates these provisions is voidable by the employee. A court may award an employee reasonable attorney’s fees, among other remedies, for enforcing rights under the act. Read our in-depth report on SB 1241 hereAdds Section 925 to the Labor Code.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Employment Heat Safety. SB 1167 provides that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) shall propose to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) for review and adoption, a standard that minimizes heat-related illness and injury among workers working in indoor places of employment by January 1, 2019. This bill comes as a response to a 2012 OSHA decision, upheld in 2015 by the Cal/OSHA appeals board, in which a staffing company and warehouse operator were fined for the heat illness suffered by an employee who was working inside a metal freight contained in over 100 degree heat. Adds Section 6720 to the Labor Code.  Effective January 1, 2019.

Employee Contact Information. AB 2843 expands an existing provision of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) that exempts the homes addresses and home telephone numbers of certain public employees from public disclosure to now cover all public employees, including persons paid by the state to provide in-home support services. Additionally, this bill extends the CPRA exemption to include the employee’s personal cell phone number and birth date. However, telephone numbers will be made available to bargaining agents for those employees. Amends Government Code Sections 6253.2 and 6254.3.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Industry Specific

Property Service Workers. AB 1978 creates the Property Services Workers Protection Act by establishing various requirements for the janitorial industry, including registering annually with the DLSE, to protect janitorial employees from wage theft and sexual harassment. The provisions of this bill apply to employers that employ at least one “covered worker” who enters into a contract, subcontract, or franchise agreement to provide janitorial services. This bill also requires the DLSE to maintain a database of property service employers and to develop a biennial sexual harassment and violence prevention training. This bill prohibits an employer from registering or renewing its registration if it has not fully satisfied any final judgment for unpaid wages or made appropriate tax contributions. “Successor employers” are also liable for any wages and penalties owed to the predecessor’s employees. The bill was signed while janitors were fasting outside of the CapitolAdds Part 4.2 (commencing with Section 1420) to Division 2 of the Labor Code.  Effective July 1, 2018.

Talent Services. AB 2068 updates the Talent Service Act’s existing communication and contractual protections to include new technologies, such as mobile applications. Specifically, AB 2068 strengthens the protection for an artist’s information or image to include information posted on an online service, online application, mobile application, or website. AB 2068 also updates the communication and advertisement protections between talent agencies and artists by including communication through the use of a telecommunication device, in print, on the Internet, or through the use of a mobile or online application or other electronic communication. AB 2068 also adds “text message” and other “electronic communication” to the list of methods by which an artist may ask that photographs and other information about the artist be removed from a website, online service, online application, or mobile application owned or serviced by the talent service. Amends Labor Code Sections 1703 and 1703.4.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Work Experience Education. AB 2063 provides an additional option for a student, at least 14 years old, to participate in work experience education. The bill also increases the number of hours per week a student may participate in job shadowing from 25 to 40 hours per semester, if the principal of the school where the student is enrolled certifies that it is necessary for the student’s participation in a career technical education program. Amends Education Code Section 51760.3 and 51769.  Effective January 1, 2017.

Commercial Online Entertainment Employment Services. AB 1687 addresses age discrimination in the entertainment industry by prohibiting a commercial online entertainment employment service (i.e., IMDb) that enters into a contract, from publishing a subscriber’s age or date of birth in an online profile. Proponents of this legislation cited cases such as Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc, et al, in which a subscriber sued for having her age published on her profile page. The bill also requires that a service provider—upon request by the subscriber—remove age information from public view in any online profile under its control. Adds Section 1798.83.5 to the Civil Code. Effective January 1, 2017.

Other

Single-User Restrooms. AB 1732 requires all single-user toilet facilities in any business establishment, place of accommodation, or government agency to be identified as all-gender toilet facilities. The bill also provides that local officials responsible for code enforcement are to inspect for compliance. Adds Article 5 (commencing with Section 118600) to Chapter 2 of Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code.  Effective March 1, 2017.

VETOED (i.e., “it coulda been worse”)

Parental Leave. SB 654 would have significantly expanded California’s parental leave laws by requiring employers with 20 to 49 employees to provide up to six weeks of unpaid, job-protected parental leave and paid health benefits to bond with a new child within one year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Existing law—the California Family Rights Act—applies only to employers with 50 or more employees, and provides for at least 12 weeks of job-protected parental leave. The Governor vetoed this bill on September 30, stating: “It goes without saying that allowing new parents to bond with a child is very important and the state has a number of paid and unpaid benefit programs to provide for that leave.  I am concerned, however, about the impact of this leave particularly on small businesses and the potential liability that could result.  As I understand, an amendment was offered that would allow an employee and employer to pursue mediation prior to a lawsuit being brought.  I believe this is a viable option that should be explored by the author.”  In other words, we likely have not seen the last of this proposal.

Examination of Jurors. AB 1766 would have required that prospective jurors be referred to by either an identification number or abbreviation during voir dire in criminal trials. In his August 29 veto message, the Governor stated: “The open nature of criminal trials preserves both the defendant’s right to a fair and open trial, as well as the public’s faith in the court’s impartial application of the law. Under existing law, there are adequate remedies available if the court finds good cause to deny public access to the voir dire process or to specific juror information. These situations are best addressed on a case by case basis, and I do not believe there is a demonstrated need for a wholesale change at this time.”

BILLS THAT DIDN’T MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE CUT (i.e., “it coulda been a lot worse”)

Double Pay on the Holiday—2016 Edition. The Double Pay on Holiday Act of 2015 failed to make its way to the Governor for the second year in a row. AB 67 would have required retail and grocery store establishments, as well as restaurants located within them, to pay at least twice the regular rate of pay for employees who work on Thanksgiving.

Employee Time Off. AB 2405 would have required an employer to provide an employee at least eight hours annually of paid, job-protected, time off for an absence under the Family School Partnership Act. This bill came on the heels of SB 579, chaptered in 2015, which expanded the authorized reasons an employee can take job-protected time off under the Act and specified the definition of ‘family member” under California’s Kin Care. Read our report on SB 579 here.

Work Hours. SB 878 was similar to AB 357, the Fair Scheduling Act of 2015, which did not make it out of the Assembly. SB 878, the Reliable Scheduling Act of 2016, would have required that restaurant, grocery, and retail employers provide non-exempt employees with a 21-day work schedule in advance of their first shift on that work schedule. SB 878 would have required at least seven days advance notice. SB 878 would have required employers to pay “modification pay”—defined as compensation in addition to regular pay (the hourly rate calculated based upon 90 days prior)—if any scheduled shift is canceled, moved, or added, and for each shift for which an employee is required be on call but is not called into work.

Meal and Rest or Recovery Periods. AB 1948 would have provided a statutory remedy for an employer’s failure to provide a meal or rest or recovery period. The bill would have specified that the entire “penalty amount” was an additional hour or pay for each day that a meal or rest or recovery period was not provided to the employee.

California Workplace Flexibility Act. SB 985, SB 368’s predecessor, would have allowed employees to submit a written request for a flexible work schedule of up to four 10-hour days per week without obligating the employer to pay overtime for the 9th and 10th hours worked per day. The employer would have been obligated to pay overtime for any hours worked over 10 hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek.

Age Information in Employment. AB 984 would have prohibited an employer from using information obtained via websites regarding a person’s age to discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment. The bill also would have specified that a service provider is considered as doing business in this state and subject to California’s antidiscrimination laws when they knowingly accept payment from persons in California in exchange for posting their resumes and professional photos online.

Voluntary Veterans Preference Policy. AB 1383 would have created the Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act to authorize a private employer to establish a written veterans’ preference employment policy. The bill also would have specified that granting a veteran preference, in and of itself, would not violate any local or state equal employment opportunity law or regulation, including, but not limited to, FEHA; and would have prohibited a veterans’ preference employment policy from being established or applied for the purpose of discriminating against an employment applicant on the basis of a protected classification.

Independent Contractors. AB 1727 would have established rights for independent contractors to organize and negotiate with “hosting platforms.” This bill would have provided a right for independent contractors to engage in “group activities” in an effort to negotiate through activities such as withholding work and boycotting or critiquing labor practices. The bill would have authorized an independent contractor or a representative of independent contractors claiming a violation under this bill to bring an action in superior court and to seek injunctive relief.

Employment Arbitration Agreements Discrimination. AB 2879, the “Service Member Employment Protection Act,” brought back the language of 2015’s AB 465, which the Governor vetoed (read our summary here), but limited the application to military service members, similar to USERRA. Specifically, the bill would have prohibited employers from requiring service members to waive any Labor Code protections, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint, and would have prohibited employers from requiring service members to accept private arbitration, as a condition of employment, unless the waiver was “knowing and voluntary and not made as a condition of employment.”

DLSE Enforcement. AB 2261 would have provided the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) with new independent authority to, with or without an employee complaint, bring an action against an employer that it suspects may have terminated or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner. The authors of this bill argued that despite laws providing employees protection and encouragement to report abuse, the reality is that many workers do not report out of fear of losing their jobs. AB 2261 was built upon AB 970, which the Governor signed into law last year, and which we wrote about here.

Employee Safety. AB 2895 would have required an employer to keep at each worksite with three or more employees a complete, updated copy of the currently required written injury prevention program and make it available for inspection by any employee or by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health upon request. The bill would have also required an employer to inform each employee of the availability, and employee’s rights, to inspect and receive a copy of the injury prevention program. Additionally, an employer that received a written request would have had to  comply within a specified timeframe. The bill would have also entitled the employee to injunctive relief if the employer did not timely respond to the request.

Human Trafficking Training. AB 1595 would have required public and private mass transportation providers (bus, train, light rail, etc.) to provide training to recognize and report the signs of human-trafficking to employees who were likely to interact with victims of human trafficking. AB 1942 would have required the same training as AB 1595 but it was specific to hotels and motels that provide lodging services.

Sexual Offenses Against Minors. AB 2199 would have defined a two-year sentence enhancement where a defendant who committed a sex crime against a minor held a position of authority over the minor. The bill specifically provided that a person in a “position of authority” included, but was not limited to, a stepparent, foster parent, partner of the parent, youth leader, recreational director, athletic manager, coach, teacher, counselor, therapist, religious leader, doctor, or employer, or employee of one of the aforementioned persons.

PAGA. AB 1317 expanded on last year’s bill, AB 1506, which was signed by the Governor, that gave employers a limited right to cure certain wage-statement violations before an aggrieved employee could sue under PAGA. This bill would have provided an employer a right to cure any violation of the Labor Code before an employee could sue and would have provided an appropriation to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to establish new positions to review and investigate PAGA cases. This bill was stuck in the Senate committee on rules.

PAGA Reform. None of the bills in this year’s five-bill Private Attorneys’ General Act (PAGA) reform package made it out of the Assembly. Those bills were:

  • AB 2461 would have limited the violations an aggrieved employee was authorized to bring and required specific procedures before suing.
  • AB 2462 would have provided employers with a right to cure before an employee brought a civil action.
  • AB 2463 would have established a penalty cap of $1,000 for each aggrieved employee.
  • AB 2464 would have authorized a court to dismiss an action if the court found the aggrieved employee suffered no appreciable physical or economic harm.
  • AB 2465 would have required the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to investigate alleged violations and determine if there was a reasonable basis for a civil action.

Workplace Solutions.

Head spinning?  We’ll summarize all the new and almost-laws and give you practical tips to prepare for them in our webinar on October 6.  Register here.  Or feel free to contact any of the authors or your favorite Seyfarth attorney with any questions.

Seyfarth Synopsis: On September 25 (yes, a Sunday), Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1241. SB 1241, effective January 1, 2017, adds Section 925 to the Labor Code to restrain the ability of employers to require employees to litigate or arbitrate employment disputes (1) outside of California or (2) under the laws of another state. The only exception is where the employee was individually represented by a lawyer in negotiating an employment contract.

For companies that have headquarters outside of California and that employ people who work and reside in California, this assault on the freedom of contract is not welcome news.

Existing Law and the Genesis of SB 1241

Companies have long used forum-selection clauses and choice-of-law provisions in an effort to avoid California courts apply California law to employment disputes, especially those involving unfair competition. SB 1241 generally invalidates these provisions.

There often are legitimate reasons to have employment disputes decided where the company primarily does its business. Companies may prefer a court in their own state to decide which law (California’s or some other state’s) will govern a dispute. Under the common law, courts apply “substantial relationship” and “contrary to a fundamental policy of a state” tests to see if California law or some other law should govern a particular case.

Courts have long held that the freedom to contract favors the enforcement of forum-selection clauses. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 reinforced this rule in Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. Although not an employment case, Atlantic Marine broadly endorsed forum-selection clauses, stating that “courts should not unnecessarily disrupt the parties’ settled expectations” and that usually “ ‘the interest of justice’ is served by holding parties to their bargain.” Since that time, federal district courts in California have increasingly given more weight to forum-selection clauses.

What SB 1241 Provides

As we reported earlier, SB 1241 was among various employment-related bills that went to the Governor at the end of August 2016. SB 1241, the full text of which appears here, will be enacted as Labor Code section 925. It applies to employment contracts entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.

The key provision of Section 925 is its first section:

(a) An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following:

(1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California.

(2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.

A key exception to the application of Section 925 appears in subdivision (e):

(e) This section shall not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied.

Thus, Section 925 generally forbids employers to require California employees to adjudicate claims outside of California or to submit to the laws of another state. An employee who successfully sues to void such offending provisions can recover reasonable attorney’s fees. Lab. Code § 925(e).

History of Labor Code Section 925

Section 925 represents a direct response to work-arounds that some employers have developed in attempts to dodge peculiar California law, such as California’s prohibition of covenants not to compete. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.)

Section 925 follows Governor Brown’s refusal to sign Assembly Bill 465. As we wrote earlier, AB 465 attempted to ban mandatory employment arbitration agreements. Governor Brown’s veto message explained that purported employment abuses “should be specified and solved by targeted legislation, not a blanket prohibition.” Section 925 is one such piece of targeted legislation, attacking contractual provisions that are hostile to California law, whether they appear in an arbitration clause or elsewhere within an employment agreement.

What Labor Code Section 925 Does and Does Not Do

Under prior law, a party seeking to enforce a forum-selection clause in an employment agreement already faced an uphill battle: it had to “prove that enforcement of the forum selection clause would not result in a significant diminution of rights.” Indeed, the Court of Appeal has refused to enforce an employer’s forum-selection clause and related choice-of-law clause because they violated California public policy on employee compensation. Section 925 changes the employer’s battle from difficult to hopeless: clauses that once were simply presumptively unenforceable will now be categorically unenforceable, except for clauses negotiated with an employee “individually represented by legal counsel.”

Although Section 925 apparently is a reaction to Governor Brown’s October 2015 veto of legislation that would have banned mandatory employment arbitration agreements, Section 925 applies to all employment contracts, regardless of whether they contain arbitration clauses. Section 925 affects arbitration clauses by ensuring that employment arbitrations with California residents generally will occur in California and apply California law. Arbitration clauses that contain forum-selection or choice-of-law provisions that offend Section 925 will be to that extent contrary to public policy, an outcome that would make enforcement of the overall arbitration agreement more difficult.

Section 925 does not affect employment agreements already in effect. By its terms, the law applies only to contracts entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.

Open Questions (or Things Left to Litigate)

Section 925 does not define what it means for an employee to “primarily reside[] and work[] in California.” Nor does it specify what qualifies as a “substantive protection of California law” that it seeks to protect.

Although the term “primarily” is vague, it often will not be difficult to determine whether an employee primarily resides and works in California. More difficult would be determining whether applying the law of another state would “[d]eprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law.” Some California courts have recognized that choice-of-law provisions are enforceable where the substantive law of the selected state provides the same or similar protections as California.

#16-3380 2016 Cal Pecs Cover ImageSeyfarth synopsis:  It’s here: the 2016 edition of the popular and informative Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different. Order it here. Also, we report the results of our recent reader survey. Wage-hour Issues and Employment Termination were top of mind. Read on for more results.

FLEX YOUR PECS!  

We are thrilled to announce that the 2016 edition of Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different is available NOW! This edition, like its predecessors, aims to help California employers understand what’s different about California employment law. We continue to highlight recent court decisions and legislative developments for private employers who do business in California. The book is available in a convenient, searchable eBook format. Click here to order your copy today!

READER SURVEY RESULTS

Back in January, we surveyed you, dear readers, to capture your preferences in blog topics. The results are in! In addition to your continued desire to be equipped with the Cal-peculiar basics,  you also find it important to be on the cutting edge of everything peculiar!

90% of respondents want to read more about CA Wage-Hour Issues and Terminations of Employment.  We hear you (and are not surprised!) given the amount of litigation these areas generate.

In second place, tied at 80%, were CA Handbooks and CA Leaves (including Paid Sick Leave). Certainly, there will be more to come on these topics.

Also popular (tied at 70%), were Case Updates and New Legal Developments.

Next, at 65% of the vote, came Overtime Exemptions and Recordkeeping & Retention, followed closely by Workplace Investigations. 

No other topic garnered more than 50% of the vote. Of least interest to respondents was Arbitration, which rated a paltry 35%. Perhaps we are all a little burned out on the seemingly endless changes in judicial perspective surrounding mandatory arbitration in the employment setting.

We also received a few write in topics. Be on the lookout for future posts on drug & alcohol/medical marijuana (see also our previous blog on marijuana in the workplace and our Seyfarth blog THE BLUNT TRUTH, which chronicles the evolution and implementation of marijuana laws in the U.S.), workers’ comp/stress claims, and any California angle on use of genetic information.

Thank you for responding and thank you for your continued interest in the blog. We always love to hear from you!

On October 11—his very last day to sign or veto bills—Governor Brown vetoed the much-feared Assembly Bill 465. AB 465 would have banned mandatory agreements to arbitrate Labor Code claims as a condition of employment. At least for now, employers with such arbitration programs can breathe a sigh of relief. We previously reported about AB 465 in more detail here.

Not only did Governor Brown veto the bill, he sent a strong, thoughtful message explaining the reasons for his decision.

Brown observed:

  1. The bill was far-reaching as it would make California the only state in the country to have such a prohibition.
  2. Existing California law already has protections addressing the issue of unfairness in employment arbitration agreements—as the bill’s opponents had pointed out (thank you Armendariz).
  3. The bill’s provisions likely violated the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), as recent California and U.S. Supreme Court decisions have invalidated state policies that unduly impede arbitration—as the bill’s opponents also pointed out (thank you Concepcion).

As to the last point, Brown expressed concern that enacting such broad legislation would surely result in years of costly litigation and legal uncertainty—yes, he actually said that. Brown supported that concern by noting that the U.S. Supreme Court is already considering two cases arising out of California law that involve preemption of state policies under the FAA. Before signing an anti-arbitration bill, Brown wanted to see the outcome of those cases.

And with good reason! Several employer groups, anticipating the bill’s passage, had already been considering bringing legal challenges under the FAA. That fight will now have to await another day.

Notably, Brown did not foreclose the possibility of signing more pointed legislation in the future. He expressed concerns about fairness in employment disputes and noted that there is conflicting evidence about whether arbitration is fair to employees.

For now, employers can relax. But bills such as this are like those zombies on October 31: we can expect them to rise from the dead and haunt future legislative sessions.

October 11, 2015, was Governor Brown’s last day to sign bills the California Legislature presented to him following the first year of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session. Below is a summary of what did and did not make Governor Brown’s final cut, and some practical tips for California employers to prepare themselves for compliance with these new California peculiarities.

SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR

Piece Rate. AB 1513, adding Labor Code section 226.2 and repealing sections 77.7, 127.6, and 138.65, will make it even more difficult for California employers to pay employees on a piece-rate basis. Effective January 1, 2016, employers must pay piece-rate employees for rest and recovery periods (and all other periods of “nonproductive” time) separately from (and in addition to) their piece-rate compensation. Specifically, employers will need to pay the following rates for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time”:

  • Rest and recovery periods. Employers must pay a piece-rate employee for rest and recovery periods at an average hourly rate that is determined by dividing the employee’s total compensation for the workweek (not including compensation for rest and recovery periods and overtime premiums) by the total hours worked during the workweek (not including rest and recovery periods).
  • Other nonproductive time. Employers must pay piece-rate employees for other nonproductive time at a rate that is no less than the minimum wage. If employers pay an hourly rate for all hours worked in addition to piece-rate wages, then those employers would not need to pay amounts in addition to that hourly rate for the other nonproductive time.

Employers must specify additional categories of information on a piece-rate employee’s itemized wage statement: (i) the total hours of compensable rest and recovery periods, (ii) the rate of compensation paid for those periods, and (iii) the gross wages paid for those periods during the pay period. If employers do not pay a separate hourly rate for all hours worked (in addition to piece-rate wages), then the employer must also list (i) the total hours of other non-productive time, (ii) the rate of compensation for that time, and (iii) the gross wages paid for that time during the pay period. Signed October 10, 2015.

PAGA. AB 1506, amending California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) codified in Labor Code sections 2699, 2699.3, and 2699.5, became effective upon the Governor’s signature on October 2, 2015. PAGA, as thus amended, now gives employers a limited right to cure certain wage-statement violations before an aggrieved employee may sue under PAGA. Specifically, an employer can cure violations of the wage-statement statute (Labor Code section 226(a)) with respect to providing either the inclusive dates of the pay period or the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. An employer can take advantage of this provision only once for the same violation of the statute during each 12-month period.

Employer Liability: Employee Family Member Protected Complaints & Labor Contractor Joint Liability. AB 1509, effective January 1, 2016, amends Labor Code sections 98.6, 1102.5, and 6310 to forbid employers from retaliating against employees for being a family member of an employee who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in activities protected under those Labor Code sections (i.e., generally, making complaints about working conditions or pay, or whistleblowing). The bill also amends Labor Code section 2810.3—added to the Labor Code in January 2015 to impose joint liability on client employers for employees supplied by a labor contractor (our analysis of that law is here)—to exclude from that law client employers that use Public Utilities Commission-permitted third-party household goods carriers, as specified. Signed October 11, 2015.

Expansion of Labor Commissioner Enforcement Authority. AB 970, effective January 1, 2016, amends Labor Code sections 558, 1197, and 1197.1 to authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce local laws regarding overtime and minimum wage provisions and to issue citations and penalties for violations, provided the local entity has not already cited the employer for the same violation. The bill also authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations and penalties to employers who violate the expense reimbursement provisions of Labor Code section 2802. Signed October 11, 2015.

Labor Commissioner: Judgment Enforcement. SB 588, effective January 1, 2016,  makes various changes and additions to the Labor Code relating to the Labor Commissioner’s enforcement authority. Among other things, it authorizes the Labor Commissioner to file a lien on the employer’s property in California for unpaid wages, and other compensation, penalties, and interest owed to an employee. Signed October 11, 2015.

Industrial Welfare Commission: Wage Orders—Hospital Meal Periods. SB 327 clarifies that existing law regarding a health care employee’s ability to waive voluntarily one of the two meal periods on shifts exceeding 12 hours remains in effect. The bill states that the rules remain the same as they have been since 1993 (as expressly embraced by the Industrial Welfare Commission in 2000). The legislation was adopted to remove any uncertainty caused by the decision in Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Med. Ctr., 234 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2015). Signed by the Governor on October 5, 2015, the bill took effect immediately as an urgency measure.

Gender Wage Equality. As we discussed in detail immediately after the Governor’s October 6 signing of SB 358, the bill, effective January 1, 2016, amends Labor Code section 1197.5 to prohibit employers from paying any employee at a wage rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for doing substantially similar work—when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility. The new legislation also requires employers to affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based entirely and reasonably upon enumerated factors, such as a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor that is not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation and that is consistent with a business necessity. The bill contains anti-retaliation provisions and provides a private right of action to enforce its provisions.

Kin Care. SB 579, effective January 1, 2016, amends California’s Kin Care law (Labor Code section 233) to tie its protections to the reasons and definition of “family member” specified in the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (i.e., paid sick leave law). The bill also expands coverage of California’s school activities leave (Family School Partnership Act, Labor Code section 230.8) to include day care facilities and cover child care provider emergencies, and the finding, enrolling, or reenrolling of a child in a school or day care, and would extend protections to an employee who is a step-parent or foster parent or who stands in loco parentis to a child. Signed October 11, 2015.

Annual E-Verify Bill. AB 622, effective January 1, 2016, adds section 2814 to the Labor Code to prohibit an employer from using E-Verify to check the employment authorization status of an existing employee or an applicant who has not received an offer of employment, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Each employer that uses E-Verify in violation of this new section is liable for $10,000 per violation. Signed October 9, 2015.

Paid Sick Leave Amendments. AB 304, signed by the Governor July 13, 2015, and effective on that date, amends provisions of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 codified in Labor Code sections 245.5, 246, and 247.5. Read our detailed analysis of this legislation.

Accommodation Request as Protected Activity. AB 987, effective January 1, 2016, amends Government Code section 12940 to overturn the interpretation in Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2013), that an accommodation request is not a protected activity. The Legislature thus intended to clarify that a request for reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability constitutes protected activity. The Fair Employment and Housing Act, thus amended, will now expressly prohibit retaliation and discrimination against a person for requesting accommodation, regardless of whether the request is granted.  Signed July 16, 2015.

Professional Sports Team Cheerleaders as Employees. AB 202, effective January 1, 2016, requires California-based professional major and minor league baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, and soccer teams to classify and treat cheerleaders who perform during those teams’ exhibitions, events, or games as employees and not independent contractors.

90-Day Retention of Grocery Workers Following Change of Ownership. AB 359 and AB 897, effective January 1, 2016, adds Labor Code sections 2500-2522 to require a “successor grocery store employer” to retain the current grocery workers for 90 days upon the “change in control” of a grocery store. The new law, previously discussed here also imposes specific requirements on the incumbent grocery store. Governor Brown noted in his signing message an ambiguity in how the law applies if an incumbent grocery employer has ceased operations, and noted the author and sponsor have committed to clarify that the law would not apply to a grocery store that has ceased operations for six months or more. The Legislature responded with AB 897, which will exclude from the definition of “grocery establishment” a retail store that has ceased operations for six months or more. AB 897 signed September 21, 2015.

VETOED: BILLS THE GOVERNOR REJECTED (i.e., “it coulda been worse”)

Arbitration and Pre-Employment Waiver Restrictions. As we recently wrote, AB 465 would have added section 925 to the Labor Code to (i) prohibit companies from conditioning employment offers (or renewals) on the waiver of any Labor Code-related right, (ii) require that any waiver of Labor Code protections be knowing, voluntary, and in writing, (iii) deem any waiver of Labor Code rights conditioned on employment to be “involuntary, unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable,” (iv) prohibit retaliation against any person who refuses to waive Labor Code-related rights, and (v) authorize an attorneys’ fees recovery for a plaintiff who enforces rights under the newly created section 925. The Governor vetoed the bill on October 11, 2015. His signing statement says that arbitration is not necessarily less fair to employees, and even if it were, Armendariz provides protections for employees in arbitration proceedings. Any remaining abuses should be addressed by targeted, not blanket legislation. And Governor Brown wants to see the outcome of two pending FAA-preemption cases before considering such a broad blanket prohibition.

Other Pay Equity Bills. AB 1017 (enrolled and presented to the Governor September 15) and AB 1354 (enrolled September 10). AB 1017 would have added section 432.3 to the Labor Code to prohibit an employer from seeking salary history information about an applicant for employment. AB 1354 would have amended Government Code section 12990 to require, of each employer with over 100 employees that is or wishes to be a state contractor or subcontractor, a nondiscrimination program that includes policies and procedures designed to ensure equal employment opportunities for all applicants and employees, an analysis of employment selection procedures, and a workforce analysis that contains the total number of workers, the total wages, and the total hours worked annually, within a specific job category identified by worker race, ethnicity, and sex. On October 11, the Governor vetoed both bills. In vetoing AB 1017, he stated we should wait to see if SB 358—the strongest equal pay law in the country—covers the issue, and did not think this bill’s broad prohibition on employers obtaining relevant information would have any effect on pay equity. In vetoing AB 1354, he stated that the DFEH’s current requirements and powers made the legislation unnecessary.

CFRA Leave. SB 406 would have extended the protections of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), Government Code section 12945.2, to care for grandparents, all children (removing any age restriction), and grandchildren, as well as siblings, domestic partners, and in-laws. Vetoed October 11, 2015, because the bill would have created a disparity between FMLA and CFRA.

Athletic Trainers. AB 161 would have made it unlawful and an unfair business practice for any person to use the title of athletic trainer, unless the trainer is certified by the Board of Certification and has completed specified educational or training requirements. Exempt from these provisions were persons who have worked as athletic trainers in California for a period of 20 consecutive years prior to January 1, 2016. AB 161 would have added sections 18898 and 18899 to the Business and Professions Code. Vetoed on September 28,  for the same reasons as the nearly identical measure the Governor vetoed last year—he believes that the conditions set forth in the bill impose unnecessary burdens on athletic trainers without sufficient evidence that changes are needed.

ALRA. AB 561 was this year’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act bill. It would have required the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to process within one year all board orders finding an employer liable for benefits due to unfair labor practices. It also would have required an employer who appeals an order of the Board involving certain awards to employees to post a bond in the amount of the entire value of the order. The Governor vetoed this bill on October 11, because he does not believe the one-year timeline allows for unexpected delays or litigation—even expedited awards take about 18 months. He also noted that, as he did in SB 28 last year, a balanced approach to ALRA enforcement reforms is needed, and encouraged the ALRB to explore internal reforms for more timely awards.

Unemployed. Undeterred by the Governor’s 2014 veto of similar legislation in AB 2271, the Legislature put AB 676 on the Governor’s desk, which would have added section 432.4 to the Labor Code to prohibit employers from publishing an announcement for a job that states or indicates an unemployed person is not eligible for the job, and to prohibit employers from asking applicants to disclose, orally or in writing, the applicant’s current employment status. The Governor vetoed the bill on October 10, because “nothing has changed. I still believe that the author’s approach does not provide a proper or even effective path to get unemployed people back to work.”

Public Employees. AB 883 would have added section 432.6 to the Labor Code to prohibit a state or local agency from discriminating against current or former public employees in publishing job advertisements, in establishing qualifications for job eligibility, and in making adverse employment decisions. The bill would also have prohibited persons who operate job posting websites from publishing any job advertisement or announcement that indicates the applicant must not be a current or former public employee. The bill removed private employers from its scope and removes damages and penalty recovery provisions. Vetoed October 10, 2015.

BILLS THAT FAILED TO MAKE THE FINAL LEGISLATIVE CUT (i.e., “it coulda been a lot worse”)

Minimum Wage Increase. SB 3 would have increased the minimum wage to $11 per hour in 2016 and $13 per hour in 2017. The bill would have also, beginning January 1, 2019, automatically adjusted the minimum wage on each January 1 to maintain employee purchasing power diminished by the rate of inflation in the prior year. Other minimum wage bills on which we previously reported, AB 1007 and AB 669, failed to make it out of the Assembly. This bill, likewise, stalled in appropriations.

Retail Scheduling. The much-feared “Fair Scheduling Act of 2015,” AB 357, based upon the recent San Francisco Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights, was held in the Assembly and ordered inactive in June. Watch for its provisions to reappear in 2016.

OT Exemption. AB 1470 was held in the Assembly at the author’s election. It would have established a rebuttable presumption that employees with gross annual compensation of $100,000 or greater (at least $1,000 per week paid on a salary or fee basis) who regularly perform any exempt duties of an executive, administrative, or professional employee are exempt from overtime pay.

Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2015. AB 67, Assembly Member Gonzalez’s attempt to require employers to pay employees double pay on Christmas and Thanksgiving, failed passage out of the Assembly. The bill then was ordered to the inactive file by the author.

Workplace Flexibility Act(s) of 2015. AB 1038 would have amended the Labor Code to permit nonexempt employees to request employee-selected flexible work schedules providing for workdays up to 10 hours per day without obligating the employer to pay overtime for those additional hours. The bill did not make it out of its first committee hearing. SB 368 similarly would have allowed a nonexempt employee to request a flexible work schedule up to 10-hour work days, and entitled the employee to overtime for hours worked greater than 10 hours in a work day or 40 hours in a work week.

Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act. AB 1383 would have amended the FEHA to ensure that none of its nondiscrimination provisions affect the hiring decisions of an employer that maintains a veterans’ preference employment policy established in accordance with the Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act (Government Code section 12958 et seq.), which this bill would have also created.

Age Information. AB 984, which would have prohibited an employer from using information obtained on a website regarding an employee or applicant’s age in making any employment decision regarding that person, failed in committee.

Unfair Immigration-Related Practices. AB 1065 was also held in committee. This bill would have made it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request more or different documents than are required under federal law relating to verification that an individual is not an unauthorized alien, or to refuse to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine, or to attempt to reinvestigate or re-verify an incumbent employee’s authorization to work unless required to do so by federal law.

Paid Family Leave Benefit Extension. AB 908 would have required the family temporary disability insurance program to provide up to eight weeks, rather than the existing six weeks, of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for specified persons, or to bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child. This bill also would have required the weekly benefit amount under this program to be calculated using a specified formula.

Workplace Solutions

Follow our Cal Pecs blog www.calpecs.com for more in-depth analysis of how some of the new legislation may affect employers doing business in California.

California State Capitol in Sacramento

The California Legislature adjourned Friday evening, September 11, to close its 2015-16 Legislative Session. It sent a number of employment-related bills to Governor Brown for consideration by his October 11, 2015 deadline to sign or veto the bills. Below is a summary of those before him for consideration, as well as some significant bills he has already signed or that did not make it to his desk. Which private labor and employment bills will the Governor sign into law? We’ll keep you updated…

PENDING BILLS:

Wage and Hour

Piece Rate. AB 1513, if approved, would make it even more difficult for California employers to pay employees on a piece-rate basis. The bill provides that employers must pay piece-rate employees for rest and recovery periods (and all other periods of “nonproductive” time) separately from (and in addition to) their piece-rate compensation. Specifically, the bill would require that employers pay the following rates for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time.”

  • Rest and recovery periods. Employers must pay piece-rate employees for rest and recovery periods at an average hourly rate that is determined by dividing the employee’s total compensation for the workweek (not including compensation for rest and recovery periods and overtime premiums) by the total hours worked during the workweek (not including rest and recovery periods).
  • Other nonproductive time. Employers would have to pay piece-rate employees for other nonproductive time at a rate that is no less than the applicable minimum wage. If employers pay an hourly rate for all hours worked in addition to piece-rate wages, then those employers would not need to pay amounts in addition to that hourly rate for the other nonproductive time.

The bill also would specify additional categories of information that must appear on a piece-rate employee’s itemized wage statement: (i) the total hours of compensable rest and recovery periods, the rate of compensation paid for those periods, and the gross wages paid for those periods during the pay period. If employers do not pay a separate hourly rate for all hours worked (in addition to piece-rate wages), then the employer must also list the total hours of other non-productive time, the rate of compensation for that time, and the gross wages paid for that time during the pay period.

AB 1513 would add Section 226.2 to the Labor Code, and repeal Sections 77.7, 127.6, and 138.65 of the Labor Code. Enrolled on September 16, 2015.

Gender Wage Equality, SB 358, AB 1017, AB 1354. As we recently wrote, there are a few important gender pay equality bills making their way through the Legislature. First, representing what media observers call the nation’s most aggressive attempt yet to close the salary gap between men and women, SB 358 would substantially broaden California gender pay differential law. SB 358 (enrolled and presented to the Governor September 15) would prohibit an employer from paying any employee at a wage rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for doing substantially similar work—when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility—and require the employer to affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based entirely and reasonably upon one or more enumerated factors, such as a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor that is not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation and that is consistent with a business necessity. The bill contains anti-retaliation provisions and provides a private right of action to enforce its provisions.

AB 1017 (enrolled and presented to the Governor September 15) and AB 1354 (enrolled September 10). AB 1017 would add section 432.3 to the Labor Code, to prohibit an employer from seeking salary history information about an applicant for employment. AB 1354 would amend Government Code section 12990 to require, of each employer with over 100 employees that is or wishes to be a state contractor or subcontractor, a nondiscrimination program that includes policies and procedures designed to ensure equal employment opportunities for all applicants and employees, an analysis of employment selection procedures, and a workforce analysis that contains the total number of workers, the total wages, and the total hours worked annually, with a specific job category identified by worker race, ethnicity, and sex.

PAGA. AB 1506 would amend California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), now codified in Labor Code sections 2699, 2699.3, and 2699.5, to give employers a limited right to cure certain wage-statement violations, before an employee may bring a civil action under PAGA. Specifically an employer would be able to cure a violation of the requirement in Labor Code section 226(a) that an employer provide employees with the inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. The employer would be allowed to take advantage of this provision only once for the same violation of the statute during each 12-month period. The bill’s provisions would become effective immediately upon the Governor’s signing the bill. Enrolled September 11, 2015.

Leaves of Absence

Kin Care. SB 579 would amend California’s Kin Care law (Labor Code Section 233) to tie its protections to the reasons and definition of “family member” specified in the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. The bill also would expand coverage of California’s school activities leave (Family School Partnership Act, Labor Code Section 230.8) to include day care facilities and cover child care provider emergencies, and the finding, enrolling, or reenrolling of a child in a school or day care, and would extend protections to an employee who is a step-parent or foster parent or who stands in loco parentis to a child. Enrolled and presented to the Governor September 8, 2015.

CFRA Leave. SB 406 would extend the protections of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), Government Code Section 12945.2, to care for grandparents, all children (removing any age restriction), and grandchildren, as well as siblings, domestic partners, and in-laws. Enrolled September 16, 2015.

Hiring/Applicants

Unemployed. Undeterred by the Governor’s 2014 veto of similar legislation in AB 2271, AB 676 was introduced and made its way to the Governor’s desk. The bill would add section 432.4 to the Labor Code, beginning July 1, 2016 to prohibit employers from publishing an announcement for a job that states or indicates an unemployed person is not eligible for the job, and from asking applicants to disclose, orally or in writing, the applicant’s current employment status. Enrolled and presented to the Governor September 16, 2015.

Public Employees. AB 883 would add section 432.6 to the Labor Code to prohibit a state or local agency from discriminating against current or former public employees in publishing job advertisements, in establishing qualifications for job eligibility, and in making adverse employment decisions. The bill would also prohibit persons who operate job posting websites from publishing any job advertisement or announcement that indicates the applicant must not be a current or former public employee. The current version of the bill removes private employers from its scope and removes damages and penalty recovery provisions. Enrolled September 14, 2015.

Annual E-Verify Bill. AB 622 would add section 2814 to the Labor Code to prohibit an employer from using E-Verify to check the employment authorization status of an existing employee or an applicant who has not received an offer of employment, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. The bill would subject each employer that uses E-Verify in violation of this new section to $10,000 per violation. Enrolled and presented to the Governor September 16, 2015.

Other

Employer Liability: Employee Family Member Protected Complaints & Labor Contractor Joint Liability. AB 1509 would amend Labor Code sections 98.6, 1102.5, and 6310, to make it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for being a family member of an employee who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in activities protected under those Labor Code sections. The bill would also amend Labor Code section 2810.3, which was added to the Labor Code January 1, 2015 to impose joint liability on client employers for employees supplied by a labor contractor (our analysis of that law is here), to exclude from that law client employers that use Public Utilities Commission-permitted third-party household goods carriers, as specified. Enrolled and presented to Governor September 16, 2015.

Expansion of Labor Commissioner Enforcement Authority. AB 970 would amend Labor Code sections 558, 1197, and 1197.1 to authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce local laws regarding overtime and minimum wage provisions and to issue citations and penalties for violations, provided the local entity has not already cited the employer for the same violation. The bill would also authorize the Labor Commissioner to issue citations and penalties to employers who violate the expense reimbursement provisions of Labor Code section 2802. Enrolled and presented to the Governor September 15, 2015.

Arbitration and Pre-Employment Waiver Restrictions. As we recently wrote, AB 465 would add section 925 to the Labor Code to (i) prohibit companies from conditioning employment offers (or renewals) on the waiver of any Labor Code-related right, (ii) require that any waiver of Labor Code protections be knowing, voluntary, and in writing, (iii) deem any waiver of Labor Code rights conditioned on employment to be “involuntary, unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable,” (iv) prohibit retaliation against any person who refuses to waive Labor Code-related rights, and (v) authorize an attorneys’ fees recovery for a plaintiff who enforces rights under the newly created section 925. Enrolled and presented to the Governor September 3, 2015.

Athletic trainers. AB 161 would make it unlawful and an unfair business practice for any person to use the title of athletic trainer, unless the trainer is certified by the Board of Certification and has completed specified educational or training requirements. Exempt from these provisions are persons who have worked as athletic trainers in California for a period of 20 consecutive years prior to January 1, 2016. AB161 would add sections 18898 and 18899 to the Business and Professions Code. Enrolled and presented to the Governor September 16, 2015.

SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR

Paid Sick Leave Amendments. AB 304. Read our detailed analysis of this legislation and its effect on the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 provisions it amended (Labor Code sections 245.5, 246, 247.5). The bill was signed by the Governor July 13, 2015, and became effective on that date, as Chapter 67 of the Statutes of 2015. AB 11, which would have included in-home support services under the definition of “employees” under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, did not make it out of the Assembly.

Accommodation Request as Protected Activity. AB 987 was intended to overturn any contrary interpretation in Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 635 that an accommodation request is not a protected activity. By amending Government Code section 12940, the Legislature intended to clarify that a request for reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability constitutes protected activity. With the amendments, the statute, effective January 1, 2016, will expressly prohibit retaliation and discrimination against a person for requesting accommodation, regardless of whether the request is granted. Signed by the Governor on July 16, 2015. Chapter 122 of the Statutes 2015.

Professional Sports Team Cheerleaders as Employees. AB 202 requires California-based professional major and minor league baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, and soccer teams to classify and treat cheerleaders who perform during those teams’ exhibitions, events, or games as employees and not independent contractors. Adds section 2754 to the Labor Code. Signed by the Governor on July 15, 2015. Chapter 102 of the Statutes 2015.

90-Day Retention of Grocery Workers Following Change of Ownership. AB 359 and AB 897. AB 359 would require a “successor grocery store employer” to retain the current grocery workers for 90 days upon the “change in control” of a grocery store. It also imposes specific requirements on the incumbent grocery store. Look for a separate blog devoted to this important piece of legislation for the grocery industry on www.calpecs.com. Adds §§ 2500-2522 to the Labor Code. Signed by the Governor on August 17, 2015. Chapter 21 of the Statutes 2015.

Governor Brown noted in his signing message an ambiguity in how the law applies if an incumbent grocery employer has ceased operations, and noted the author and sponsor have committed to clarify that the law would not apply to a grocery store that has ceased operations for six months or more. On August 20, Assembly Member Gonzalez gutted and amended AB 897, which previously related to court records, to amend provisions that will be put in place by AB 359 on January 1, 2016 to exclude from the definition of “grocery establishment” a retail store that has ceased operations for six months or more. AB 897 was presented to the Governor on September 15.

BILLS THAT FAILED TO MAKE THE CUT (i.e., “it coulda been worse”)

Minimum Wage Increase. SB 3 would have increased the minimum wage to $11 per hour in 2016 and $13 per hour in 2017. The bill would have also, beginning January 1, 2019 automatically adjusted the minimum wage on each January 1 to maintain employee purchasing power diminished by the rate of inflation in the prior year. Other minimum wage bills on which we previously reported, AB 1007 and AB 669, failed to make it out of the Assembly. This bill, likewise, stalled in appropriations.

Retail Scheduling. The much-feared “Fair Scheduling Act of 2015,” AB 357, based upon the recent San Francisco Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights, was held in the Assembly and ordered inactive in June. Watch for its provisions to reappear in 2016.

OT Exemption. AB 1470 was held in the Assembly at the author’s election. It would have established a rebuttable presumption that employees with gross annual compensation of $100,000 or greater (at least $1,000 per week paid on a salary or fee basis) who regularly perform any exempt duties of an executive, administrative, or professional employee are exempt from overtime pay.

Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2015. AB 67, Assembly Member Gonzalez’s attempt to require employers to pay employees double pay on Christmas and Thanksgiving failed passage out of the Assembly. The bill then was ordered to the inactive file by the author.

Workplace Flexibility Act(s) of 2015. AB 1038 would have amended the Labor Code to permit nonexempt employees to request employee-selected flexible work schedules providing for workdays up to 10 hours per day without obligating the employer to pay overtime for those additional hours. The bill did not make it out of its first committee hearing. SB 368 similarly would have allowed a nonexempt employee to request a flexible work schedule up to 10-hour work days, and, entitled the employee to overtime for hours worked greater than 10 hours in a work day or 40 hours in a work week.

Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act. AB 1383 would have amended the FEHA to ensure that none of its nondiscrimination provisions affect the hiring decisions of an employer that maintains a veterans’ preference employment policy established in accordance with the Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act (Gov. C. Section 12958 et seq.), which this bill would have also created.

Age Information. AB 984, which would have prohibited an employer from using information obtained on a website regarding an employee’s or applicant’s age in making any employment decision regarding that person, failed in committee.

Unfair Immigration-Related Practices. AB 1065 was also held in committee. This bill would have made it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request more or different documents than are required under federal law relating to verification that an individual is not an unauthorized alien, or to refuse to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine, or to attempt to reinvestigate or re-verify an incumbent employee’s authorization to work unless required to do so by federal law.

Paid Family Leave Benefit Extension. AB 908 would have required the family temporary disability insurance program to provide up to eight weeks, rather than the existing six weeks, of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for specified persons, or to bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child. This bill also would have required the weekly benefit amount under this program to be calculated using a specified formula.

Workplace Solutions

We will continue to monitor and report on these potential sources of annoyance for California employers, as well as any other significant legislative developments of interest. Follow our Cal Pecs blog www.calpecs.com for more in-depth analysis of how some of the new legislation may affect employers doing business in California.