Seyfarth Synopsis: California Legislators sent Governor Jerry Brown 1,217 bills to consider in his final bill-signing period as Governor—more than any California governor has seen since 2004. The final tally: 1016 signed, 201 vetoed. Below is our full, final roundup of new laws that employers must comply with, bills that fell to the Governor’s veto pen, and bills that never made it to the Governor’s desk. Even though the Governor’s veto saved California employers from some truly awful legislation (such as AB 3080’s attempted ban on employment arbitration agreements), 2019 may well bring a new Legislature just as hostile to business, and a new Governor not known for the practical caution that sometimes has characterized Governor Brown. We expect that the vetoed bills will re-emerge, and may receive a more favorable gubernatorial consideration.

Sign up for our webinar on October 10, 2018 for a discussion of these results and implications for employers.

APPROVED

Sexual Harassment Bills

Human Trafficking Awareness. SB 970 requires hotel and motel employers (excluding bed and breakfast inns), to provide—by January 1, 2020, and once every two years thereafter—at least 20 minutes of interactive human trafficking awareness training to employees likely to interact with human trafficking victims. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing can seek an order requiring an employer comply with these requirements. Adds section 12950.3 to the Government Code.

Sexual Harassment Omnibus Bill. SB 1300 adds a section to the Government Code that declares the purpose of harassment laws is to provide all Californians with equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace. To that end, the bill expressly affirms or rejects specified judicial decisions in:

  • Harris v. Forklift Systems: approving the standard in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence that in a workplace harassment suit “the plaintiff need not prove that his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of the harassment. It suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to make it more difficult to do the job.”
  • Brooks v. City of San Mateo: prohibiting reliance on Judge Alex Kozinksi’s Ninth Circuit opinion to determine what conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment under FEHA.
  • Reid v. Google, Inc.: affirming the California Supreme Court’s rejection of the “stray remarks doctrine,” because the “existence of a hostile work environment depends on the totality of the circumstances and a discriminatory remark, even if made not directly in the context of an employment decision or uttered by a nondecisionmaker, may be relevant, circumstantial evidence of discrimination.”
  • Kelley v. Conco Companies: disapproving use of this case to support different standards for hostile work environment harassment depending on the type of workplace.
  • Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc: affirming this case’s observation that “hostile working environment cases involve issues ‘not determinable on paper.’ ”

SB 1300 also:

  • Expands an employer’s potential FEHA liability for acts of nonemployees to all forms of unlawful harassment (removing the “sexual” limitation).
  • Prohibits employers from requiring an employee to sign (as a condition of employment, raise, or bonus): (1) a release of FEHA claims or rights or (2) a document prohibiting disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including nondisparagement agreements. This provision does not apply to negotiated settlement agreements to resolve FEHA claims filed in court, before administrative agencies, alternative dispute resolution, or though the employer’s internal complaint process.
  • Prohibits a prevailing defendant from being awarded attorney’s fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.
  • Authorizes (but does not require) employers to provide bystander intervention training to its employees.

SB 1300 would have—contingent upon SB 1038 also passing—subjected employees alleged to have engaged in harassment to personal liability for retaliation, discrimination, and other adverse employment actions taken against any person who has opposed practices forbidden by FEHA or participated in a FEHA action. As SB 1038, discussed below, failed to make it out of the Legislature, this proposed amendment in SB 1300 does not become operative.

SB 1300 amends Government Code sections 12940, 12965 and adds Government Code sections 12923, 12950.2, 12964.5.

Sex Harassment Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Restrictions. For settlement agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2019, SB 820 will prohibit and make void any provision that prevents the disclosure of information related to civil or administrative complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex. SB 820 expressly authorizes provisions that (1) preclude the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement and (2) protect the claimant’s identity and any fact that could reveal the identity, so long as the claimant has requested anonymity and the opposing party is not a government agency or public official. SB 820 suggests that a violation of its provisions would give rise to a cause of action for civil damages. Adds section 1001 to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Banning Waivers of Rights to Testify. As to any contract or settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2019, SB 3109 makes void and unenforceable any provision that waives a party’s right to testify in a legal proceeding (if required or requested by court order, subpoena or administrative or legislative request) regarding criminal conduct or sexual harassment on the part of the other contracting party, or the other party’s agents or employees.  Adds section 1670.11 to the Civil Code.

Strengthening Prohibitions Against Harassment With Respect to Professional Relationships. SB 224 gives additional examples of professional relationships where liability for claims of sexual harassment may arise and authorizes the DFEH to investigate those circumstances. Amends section 51.9 of the Civil Code and section 12930 and 12948 of the Government Code.

Requiring Sexual Harassment Education by Talent Agencies. AB 2338 requires talent agencies to provide adult artists, parents or legal guardians of minors aged 14-17, and age-eligible minors, within 90 days of retention, educational materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, and reporting resources. For adult model artists only, the talent agency will be required to provide materials on nutrition and eating disorders. Talent agencies will also have to retain, for three years, records showing that those educational materials were provided. Adds Article 4 (commencing with Section 1700.50) to Chapter 4 of Part 6 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.

Expanding Scope of Required Sexual Harassment Training. SB 1343 requires an employer of five or more employees—including seasonal and temporary employees—to provide certain sexual harassment training by January 1, 2020. Within six months of their assuming their position (and once every two years thereafter), all supervisors must receive at least two hours of training, and all nonsupervisory employees must receive at least one hour. SB 1343 also requires the DFEH to make available a one-hour and a two-hour online training course employers may use and to make the training videos, existing informational posters, fact sheets, and online training courses available in multiple languages. Amends sections 12950 and 12950.1 of the Government Code.

Requiring Sexual Harassment Education for In-Home Support Services. AB 3082 requires the Department of Social Services to develop or identify—and provide a copy and description to the Legislature by September 30, 2019—(1) educational materials addressing sexual harassment of in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers and recipients, and (2) a method to collect data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in the IHSS program. Adds section 12318 to the Welfare & Institutions Code.

Non-Harassment Bills

Lactation Location. AB 1976 requires employers to make reasonable efforts to provide a room or location (that is not a bathroom, deleting “toilet stall” and inserting “bathroom”) for lactation. The also bill authorizes a temporary lactation location if certain conditions are met and provides a narrow undue hardship exemption. The Governor vetoed the similar, more onerous, SB 937, discussed below. Amends section 1031 of the Labor Code.

Pay Statement: Right to Receive. Stating it is declaratory of existing law, SB 1252 provides employees the right “to receive” a copy of—not just inspect or copy—their pay statements. Amends section 226 of the Labor Code.

Rest Breaks in Petroleum Facilities. AB 2605 exempts from rest-period requirements certain workers who hold “safety-sensitive positions,” defined as a position whose duties reasonably include responding to emergencies in the facility and carry communication devices. The exemption applies only to workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement and subject to Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order No. 1. But employers must pay exempted workers one hour of pay at the regular rate if the rest period is interrupted to respond to an emergency. Because AB 2605 is an urgency statute, these provisions took effect immediately when approved by the Governor on September 20, 2018 and will sunset on January 1, 2021. The author of this bill sought to carve out an exemption for these positions in light of the recent Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. case. Adds section 226.75 to the Labor Code.

Port Drayage Motor Carries. SB 1402 requires the DLSE to post a list on its website of port drayage motor carriers with any unsatisfied judgment or assessment or any “order, decision, or award” finding illegal conduct as to various wage/hour issues, specifically including independent contractor misclassification and derivative claims. This bill also extends joint and several liability to the customers of these drayage motor carriers for their future wage violations of the same nature. Adds section 2810.4 to the Labor Code.

Contractor Liability. Passed as an urgency statute to make clarifying changes to last year’s AB 1701—which created joint liability for construction contractors and subcontractors—AB 1565 immediately repeals the express provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions including interest owed. For contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2019,  the direct contractor must specify what documents and information the subcontractor must provide in order to withhold a disputed payment. Amends section 218.7 of the Labor Code.

Criminal History. SB 1412 requires employers to consider only a “particular conviction” (“for specific criminal conduct or a category of criminal offenses prescribed by any federal law, federal regulation, or state law that contains requirements, exclusions, or both, expressly based on that specific criminal conduct or category of criminal offenses”) relevant to the job when screening applicants using a criminal background check. Amends section 432.7 of the Labor Code.

Women on Boards. SB 826 requires California-based publicly held corporations to have on their board of directors at least one female—defined as people who self-identify as women, regardless of their designated sex at birth. The deadline for compliance is December 31, 2019. A corporation may need to increase its authorized number of directors to comply with this requirement. The bill imposes minimum seat requirements that must be filled by women, proportional to the total number of seats, by December 31, 2021. The Secretary of State must publish a report by July 1, 2019 of the number of corporations whose principal executive offices are in California and have at least one female director, and an annual report beginning March 1, 2020, detailing the number of corporations that (1) complied with requirements in 2019, (2) moved their headquarters in or out of California, and (3) were subject to these provisions during 2019, but no longer publicly traded.

For each director’s seat not held by a female during at least a portion of the calendar year—when by law it should have been—the corporation will be subject to a $100,000 fine for the first violation and a $300,000 fine for further violations. Corporations that fail to timely file board member information with the Secretary of State will also be subject to a $100,000 fine. Adds sections 301.3 and 2115.5 to the Corporations Code.

Mediation Confidentiality. SB 954 requires attorneys, except in class actions, to provide their mediating clients with a written disclosure containing the confidentiality restrictions provided in Section 1119 of the Evidence Code and obtain the client’s written acknowledgment that the client has read and understands the confidentiality restrictions. This duty arises as soon as reasonably possible before the client agrees to participate in mediation or a mediation consultation. The bill is of little consequence as an attorney’s failure to comply is not a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in or pursuant to a mediation. Amends Evidence Code section 1122 and adds Evidence Code section 1129.

Class Action Settlements. Among many other changes not directly relevant to this blog, AB 3250 revises amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 384, which took effect immediately upon the Governor’s signing SB 847 on June 27, 2018 (SB 847 also added relevant Code of Civil Procedure sections 382.4 and 384.5). By virtue of SB 847, Section 384 requires a court, before the entry of a judgment (including consent judgment, decree, settlement agreement approved by the court) in a class action, to determine the total amount that will be payable to all class members, and set a date when the parties are to report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the class. After the report is received, the court must amend the judgment to direct the defendant to pay the sum of the unpaid residue, plus interest on that sum at the legal rate of interest from the date of entry of the initial judgment (AB 3250 deletes this italicized language and replaces it with “that has accrued thereon”), to nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the underlying cause of action, or to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent. An attorney for a party to a class action must notify the court if the attorney has a connection to a proposed nonparty recipient of class action settlement funds that could reasonably create the appearance of impropriety. The court must transmit a copy of the judgment to the Judicial Council, identifying nonparty recipients of class action settlement funds. Amends Business and Professions Code section 6402.2, Civil Code sections 51.7, 52.1, and 54.8, Code of Civil Procedure sections 384, 1013b, 1276, 1277, and 1277.5, Health & Safety Code section 103430, and Insurance Code section 10861.03. Repeals Code of Civil Procedure section 630.30.

VETOED

Banning Contractual Limits on Disclosure and Arbitration Agreements. AB 3080 would have prohibited businesses from requiring, as a condition of employment, employment benefit, or contract (1) that a job applicant or employee waive any right, forum, or procedure (e.g., arbitration) for a violation of FEHA or the Labor Code, and (2) that a job applicant, employee, or independent contractor not disclose instances of sexual harassment suffered, witnessed, or discovered in the work place or in performance of the contract, opposing unlawful practices, or participating in harassment and discrimination related investigations or proceedings. Biting their fingernails into the night on the Governor’s signing deadline, to employers’ relief, Governor Brown vetoed the bill. The Governor stated he was compelled to veto this bill because it “plainly violates federal law.” He remained consistent with his veto of a similar bill in 2015, in which he referred to recent court decisions that invalidated state policies that impeded arbitration and stated his desire to watch future US Supreme Court decisions on the topic before “endorsing a broad ban on mandatory arbitration agreements.” He stated that the “direction from the Supreme Court since my earlier veto has been clear—states must follow the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act,” citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia; and Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark to reject this bill’s premise “that the Act governs only the enforcement and not the initial formation of arbitration agreements.”

Expanding Record Retention. AB 1867 would have required employers with 50 or more employees to maintain records of complaints alleging sexual harassment for at least five years after the last date of employment of the complainant or alleged harasser, whichever is later. In his veto message, the Governor sagely noted this bill could lead to the retention of records for decades and could require complaints alleging sexual harassment to be maintained for the same amount of time regardless of the result of the investigative process. For those reasons, and because existing law requires personnel records, including records of complaints, be maintained “for suitable periods of time,” the Governor found the time expansion of this bill unwarranted.

Expanding Administrative Charge Filing Deadlines. AB 1870 would have extended a complainant’s time to file an administrative charge with the DFEH from one year to three years after the alleged incident for all types of FEHA-prohibited conduct, including sexual harassment. In vetoing this bill, Governor Brown found the current filing deadline, in place since 1963, “not only encourages prompt resolution while memories and evidence are fresh, but also ensures that unwelcome behavior is promptly reported and halted.”

Extending Liability for Employers and for Businesses Using Labor Contractors. AB 3081 would have amended the FEHA and Labor Code to (1) add status as a sexual harassment victim to existing prohibitions on discrimination against employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, (2) create a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation if an employer—within 30 days of notice of the victim’s status—discharges or threatens to discharge, demotes, suspends, or otherwise discriminates against a victim employee, (3) make a business jointly liable for harassment of workers supplied by the business’s labor contractor (existing law similarly extends liability for the contractor’s failure to pay wages and obtain valid workers’ compensation coverage), (4) prohibit businesses from shifting to their labor contractors duties or liabilities under the Labor Code workers’ compensation insurance provisions. Governor Brown rejected the bill on the basis that most of its provisions are unnecessary as already contained in current law, or, if new, are confusing.

Immigration Documents. AB 2732 would have subjected to penalties employers that destroy or withhold passports or other immigration documents, and required all employers to provide a “Worker’s Bill of Rights” (to be developed by the DIR) to all employees. AB 2732 also would have made various changes to the Property Service Worker Protection Act, contingent upon this bill’s and AB 2079’s passing. In a lesson to narrowly tailor bills, Governor Brown found the “provision of this bill that prohibits employers from withholding immigration documents from workers is very appropriate,” but still struck down this entire bill due to its “burdensome and unwarranted” mandate that all employers, even those having nothing to do with labor trafficking, provide the “Worker’s Bill of Rights’ to every employee in California. “This goes too far.”

Lactation Accommodations. SB 937 would have required employers to (1) provide a lactation room with prescribed features and access to a sink and refrigerator (or another cooling device suitable for storing milk) in close proximity to the employee’s workspace, (2) develop and distribute to employees a lactation accommodation policy, and (3) maintain accommodation request records for three years and allow the employee and Labor Commissioner access to the records. SB 937 would have also deemed the denial of time or space for lactation a failure to provide a rest period under Labor Code section 226.7, and required the DLSE to create a model lactation policy and a model lactation accommodation request form. Having signed AB 1976 to further “the state’s ongoing effort to support working mothers and their families,” Governor Brown vetoed this bill as not necessary.

Property Service Worker Protection Act Amendments. Governor Brown vetoed two bills (AB 2732, discussed above, and AB 2079) to amend the Property Service Worker Protection Act, which went into effect July 1, 2018 (AB 1978), and imposes requirements to combat wage theft and sexual harassment for the janitorial industry. In his veto message, the Governor urged AB 2079’s authors and sponsors to allow the Act—“the first of its kind in the country”—to be fully implemented before proposing significant changes. AB 2079 would have required (1) all employers applying for new or renewed registration to demonstrate completion of sexual harassment violence prevention requirements and provide an attestation to the Labor Commissioner, (2) the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to convene an advisory committee to develop requirements for, and maintain a list of, qualified organizations and peer-trainers for employers to use in providing training, and (3) employers, upon request, to provide requesting employees a copy of all training materials. AB 2079 would have also prohibited the Labor Commissioner from approving a janitorial service employer’s request for registration or for renewal if the employer had not fully satisfied a final judgment to a current or former employee for a violation of the FEHA.

Janitorial Workers Employment Classification. AB 2496 would have established a rebuttable presumption that janitorial workers who perform services for property service employers are employees, not independent contractors. Governor Brown vetoed the bill as premature, pending Legislature review of the California Supreme Court decision in in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which recently established a new test to determine whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or independent contractor.

Veterans and Military Personnel. Governor Brown vetoed SB 1427, which would have added veterans and military personnel as a protected class under the FEHA, because the bill’s other, non-employment-related provisions went “too far.”

Construction Industry Harassment and Discrimination. SB 1223 would have required the DIR to convene an advisory committee to recommend minimum standards for a harassment and discrimination prevention policy and training program specific to the construction industry, and to report to the Legislature specific implementation recommendations. Governor Brown vetoed this bill as better placed with the DFEH—responsible for enforcing the FEHA and its harassment and discrimination prevention and training requirements—not the Labor Commissioner.

FAILED TO PASS BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURE

Personal Liability for Retaliation. SB 1038 proposed the same amendment to FEHA as SB 1300 to impose personally liability upon an employee for retaliating against a person who has filed a complaint against the employee, testified against the employee, assisted in any proceeding, or opposed any prohibited practice. As discussed, above, since SB 1038 failed, so did the same proposed amendment in SB 1300.

Hotel Panic Button. AB 1761 would have required hotel employers to provide employees with a “panic button” to call for help in case of an emergency, post a notice of these provisions in each guestroom, provided paid time off or a reasonable accommodation to an employee who is the victim of an assault, required an employer—upon the employee’s request—to contact police, prohibited employers from taking action against any employee who exercises the protections, and imposed penalties for violations of the proposed provisions.

Employers Pay Data. SB 1284 would have required private employers with 100 or more employees and required to file an EEO-1 report to submit a pay data report to the DFEH containing specified information. This bill would have also authorized fines to be imposed on employers who fail to report, authorized the DFEH to seek an order requiring the employer to comply, and require the DFEH to maintain the records for 10 years, though no individually identifiable information could be made public.

FAILED TO PASS THE HOUSE OF ORIGIN

Victims of Sexual Harassment. AB 2366 would have extended existing law that protects employees who take time off work due to being victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, to include victims of sexual harassment. This bill would have also extended job-protected leave to family members of such victims.

DLSE Time to File Extension. AB 2946 would have extended the time to file a complaint with the DLSE from six months to three years from the date of the violation and amended California’s whistleblower provision to authorize a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

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

Pay Statements. AB 2223 would have provided employers the option to provide itemized pay statements on a monthly basis and extended the time an employer has to respond to a request to inspect or copy pay statements from 21 to 28 calendar days. AB 2613 would have imposed penalties on employers who violate Labor Code provisions requiring payment of wages twice per month on designated paydays, and once per month for exempt employees.

Flexible Work Schedules. AB 2482 would have allowed private non-exempt employees, not subject to collective bargaining agreements, to request a flexible work schedule to work ten hours per day within a 40-hour workweek without overtime compensation.

Marijuana. AB 2069 would have provided that the medical use of cannabis by a qualified patient with an identification card is subject to a reasonable accommodation by an employer.

Another Failed PAGA Effort. AB 2016 would have required an employee’s required written PAGA notice to the employer include a more in-depth statement of facts, legal contentions, and authorities supporting each allegation, and include an estimate of the number of current and former employees against whom the alleged violations were committed and on whose behalf relief is sought. AB 2016 would have prescribed specified notice procedures if the employee or employee representative seeks relief on behalf of ten or more employees. The bill excluded health and safety violations from PAGA’s right-to-cure provisions, increased the time the employer had to cure violations from 33 to 65 calendar days, and provided an employee may be awarded civil penalties based only on a violation actually suffered by the employee.

Sick Leave. AB 2841 would have increased an employer’s alternate sick leave accrual method from 24 hours by the 120th calendar day of employment to 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment—but not needing to exceed 80 hours. An employer would have been able to limit the amount sick leave carried over to the following year to 40 hours. This provision would have applied to IHSS providers on January 1, 2026.

Criminal History. AB 2680 would have required the CA Department of Justice to adopt a standard form that employers would have to use when seeking the consent of an applicant for employment to conduct a conviction history background check on that applicant by the department. SB 1298 would have placed limits on the criminal history reporting that DOJ would provide to employers and required DOJ to provide the subject with a copy of the information and at least five days to challenge its accuracy before releasing it to the employer. AB 2647 would have prohibited evidence of a current or former employee’s criminal history from being admitted, under specified circumstances, in a civil action based on the current or former employee’s conduct against an employer, an employer’s agents, or an employer’s employees.

With this summary, our legislative team bids you, and Governor Jerry Brown, adieu. But don’t forget to sign up and attend our upcoming webinar for our verbal tribute to this year’s L&E legislation and Governor Brown’s final acts.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Back from Spring Break, and Back to Work: Our List of L&E Bills to Watch in the remainder of the 2017-2018 California Legislative Session.

New LegislationCalifornia Legislators were, as always, very busy in the first few months of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, introducing well over 2000 bills by the February 17th bill introduction deadline. But, in comparison to prior years, the calendar has been surprisingly light for heavy-hitter labor and employment bills. The Legislature returned to work on April 17, after its spring break, and continued to push bills out of the house of origin in advance of the June 2nd deadline.

Here’s what we’re watching:

Opportunity to Work Act. Modeled after the City of San Jose’s November 2016 voter-approved Opportunity to Work Ordinance (effective April 1, 2017), AB 5 would require employers with 10 or more employees in California to offer additional hours of work to existing nonexempt employees in California before the employer may hire additional employees or temporary employees. The employer would not have to offer the hours to existing employees if those hours would result in the payment of overtime compensation to those employees. The bill would require employers to retain documents, including work schedules of all employees and documentation of offering additional hours to existing employees, prior to hiring new employees or subcontractors. The bill would also require employers to post a notice to be created by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) outlining employee rights under this (proposed) new law. This Act would create a new Labor Code section, and provide for enforcement by the DLSE on its own accord or via complaint by an employee, or via employee private right of action. The Act would allow for an express CBA carve-out. The bill is scheduled for its initial hearing in the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment on April 19. Stay tuned for an update on this bill following the hearing.

Rest Breaks. AB 817 would carve out an exception to Labor Code section 226.7’s off-duty “rest period” requirement for employers providing emergency medical services to the public. The bill would authorize those EMS employers to require employees to monitor and respond to calls for emergency response purposes during rest or recovery periods without penalty, as long as the rest break is rescheduled. The bill expressly states that it is declaratory of existing law. Likely in response to the California Supreme Court’s December 22, 2016 ruling in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (holding that no true rest break was permitted when security guards were required to carry radios or pagers and respond to calls during rest breaks), this bill is one to watch.

Retail employees: Holiday Overtime. AB 1173 would establish an overtime exemption for “a holiday season employee-selected flexible work schedule,” requested in writing by individual nonexempt retail employees and approved by the employer. The exemption would allow the employee to work up to 10 hours per workday with no overtime pay. Hours worked between 10 and 12 in a workday, or over 40 hours in a workweek would be paid at one and one-half the regular rate of pay. All hours over 12 in a workday and over eight on a fifth, sixth, or seventh day in a workweek would be paid at double time. This bill contains a CBA carve-out, and clearly has many details to still be ironed out, as it contains a blank in the bill text for the definition of “retail industry.”

Pay Equity: salary inquiry ban. Once again, AB 168 seeks to ban employers, including state and local government employers, from asking job applicants about their salary history, as well as compensation and benefit information. The bill would also require that private employers, upon reasonable request, provide the applicant with the position’s pay scale. AB 168 brings back language that was shot down twice—first by Governor Brown in his October 2015 veto of AB 1017, then removed from 2016’s AB 1676 (fair pay legislation) before it received the Governor’s approval in September 2016.

Pay Equity: Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act. Dubbed the “Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act,” by author Assembly Member Gonzalez-Fletcher in her April 4, 2017 Equal Pay Day press release, AB 1209 would “require companies with more than 250 employees to include gender pay data as part of their annual reporting to the Secretary of State.” If passed, AB 1209 would require employers, beginning July 1, 2020, to publish and update yearly the difference between the mean salary and median salary of male exempt employees and female exempt employees broken down by job classification or title and the difference between the mean compensation and median compensation for male board members and female board members. Arguments against this bill will likely mirror those made in response to the EEOC’s revised EEO-1 rule.

Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act. Dubbed the “Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act,” AB 353 and AB 1477 would allow private employers to establish a veterans’ preference policy  and uniformly grant a hiring preference to veteran applicants, regardless of when the veteran served. These bills would expand Government code section 12940(a)(4), which currently allows for a veterans’ preference policy for Vietnam-era veterans only. The bill would provide that the granting of a veterans’ preference will not violate any local or state equal employment opportunity law or regulation, including FEHA, as long as the policy is not applied for the purpose of discriminating against an employment applicant on the basis of any protected classification.

Applicants: prior criminal history. The Legislature is joining the flurry of “Ban-the-Box” initiatives throughout California with AB 1008, which would make it unlawful for an employer to: 1) include on any job application questions that seek the disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history; 2) inquire or consider an applicant’s prior convictions before extending a conditional offer; and 3) when conducting a background check, to consider or disclose  various information. The bill would also require employers that intend to deny employment to an applicant because of prior convictions to perform an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship to the specific job duties, considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the time passed since the completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job. Then, the employer must notify the applicant of the reasons for the decision and provide the applicant 10 days to respond and challenge the accuracy of that information or provide evidence of rehabilitation which it must consider before making a final employment decision, in writing. This bill is substantially similar to the recent Fair Employment and Housing Council regulations, which go into effect in July 2017; and would thus largely codify what will soon be required by regulation.

Health professional interns: minimum wage. Following the recent increases in minimum wage, AB 387 would expand the definition of “employer” to include a person who employs any person engaged in supervised work experience (i.e., clinical hours) to satisfy the requirements for licensure, registration, or certification as an allied health professional. Cal Chamber opposes this bill, as it could cause internships provided for educational credit to be eliminated.

Resident apartment manager wages. AB 543 would authorize, under a voluntary written agreement, an employer that doesn’t charge a resident apartment manager monthly rent, to apply up to one-half of the fair market rental value of the apartment to meet minimum wage obligations to the apartment manager. Existing law allows employers to take a credit against minimum wage for two-thirds of the ordinary rental value, up to $564.81 per month for a single occupant and $835.49 per month for couples.

Credit Card gratuities. AB 1099 would require employers that are lodging establishments, car washes, barber shops and beauty salons, massage parlors, restaurants, and on-demand service providers such as transportation network companies that allow debit or credit card payment for services to also accept a debit or credit card for gratuities or tips. This bill would require the tip payment to be made to the employee by the next regular payday following the date the credit card authorized payment.

Overtime compensation: executive, administrative, or professional employees. AB 1565 would exempt from overtime compensation an executive, administrative, or professional employee, if the employee earns a monthly salary of either $3,956 or no less than twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment, whichever amount is higher.

Labor organizations: compulsory fee payments. AB 1174 would, beginning January 1, 2018, prohibit a person from requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to pay union dues or contribute financially to any charity sponsored by or at the behest of a labor organization.

Employer liability: small business and microbusiness. AB 442 would prohibit Cal OSHA from bringing an enforcement action for any “nonserious violation” against any employers with 100 or fewer employees and an average gross of $10,000,000 or less over the past three years, or microbusinesses  with 25 or fewer employees and an average gross of $2,500,000 or less over the past three years, without first giving the employer written notice of the violation and providing 30 days to cure. AB 442 would authorize Cal OSHA to assess a reasonable fee, up to $50, to cover its costs for enforcement.

Immigration: worksite enforcement actions. AB 450, the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” would impose several requirements on public and private employers dealing with federal ICE workplace raids or enforcement actions. Assemblymember Chiu has described the key components as:

  • Requiring employers to ask for a warrant before granting ICE access to a worksite.
  • Preventing employers from releasing employee records without a subpoena.
  • Requiring employers to notify the Labor Commissioner and employee representative of a worksite raid and notifying the Labor Commissioner, employees, and employee representatives of an I-9 audit (i.e., employment eligibility verification).
  • Preventing retaliation by enabling workers crucial to a labor claim investigation to receive certification from the Labor Commissioner that employee complainant or employee witness has submitted a valid complaint for violations of the Code and is cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of the violations.

The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to asses penalties of at least $10,000 to $25,000 for each violation against employers for failure to satisfy the bill’s requirements and prohibitions.

FEHA enforcement expansion. SB 491 would expand Government Code section 12993 and allow local jurisdictions, such as cities and counties, to enforce FEHA discrimination regulations. Cal Chamber opposes this bill.

Good faith defense: employment violations. SB 524 would permit an employer to raise an affirmative defense that, at the time of a violation, the employer was acting in good faith when the employer relied upon a valid published DLSE opinion letter or enforcement policy. SB 524 would only apply after January 1, 2018 to DLSE opinion letters or enforcement policies that are still in effect at the time of the violation. Employers would not be able to claim an affirmative defense when a DLSE opinion letter or enforcement policy has been modified, rescinded, or deemed invalid. Cal Chamber supports this bill but hearings for SB 524 have been canceled at the request of the author, Senator Vidak. We’ll keep our eye on this to see if there is any further movement.

Reproductive health. AB 569 would prohibit employers from taking any adverse employment action against an employee based on the employee or employee’s dependent’s reproductive health decisions. The bill would also prohibit employers from requiring employees to sign a waiver or any document denying an employee the right to make his or her own reproductive health care decisions, including the use of a particular drug, device, or medical service (e.g., in vitro fertilization). The bill would require an employer to include in its handbook a notice of the employee rights and remedies under this bill.

New Parent Leave Act. Likely DOA, but resurrected for another go from its 2016 veto, SB 63, the “New Parent Leave Act,” would prohibit employers with at least 20 employees within 75 miles, from refusing to allow an employee to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Like under CFRA, to be eligible, the employee must have more than 12 months and at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period. The bill would require the employer to maintain and pay for the employee’s coverage under a group health plan during this leave. SB 63 would also allow—but not require—an employer to grant simultaneous leave when two employees are entitled to leave for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement. This bill is almost identical to 2016’s SB 654, which Governor Brown vetoed, and only provided for 6 weeks of leave, rather than the 12 weeks SB 63 would provide. The Governor’s veto message expressed his concerns for impact the leave would have on small business and pointed lawmakers to explore an amendment that would have made mediation an option—which the SB 63 does not have.

PAGA: Three New Valiant Efforts. AB 281 attempts to reform PAGA by: 1)  requiring an actual injury for an aggrieved employee to be awarded civil penalties; 2) excluding health and safety violations from the employer right to cure provisions; and 3) increasing employers’ cure period to 65 calendar days from 33.

AB 1429 would limit the violations an aggrieved employee can bring, require the employee follow specific procedural prerequisites to filing suit, limit civil penalties recoverable to $10,000 per claimant and exclude the recovery of filing fees, and require the superior court to review any penalties sought as part of a settlement agreement.

AB 1430 would require the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to investigate alleged Labor Code violations and issue a citation or determination regarding a reasonable basis for a claim within 120 calendar days; and allow an employee private action only after the LWDA’s reasonable basis notification or the expiration of the 120 day period. Read our further analysis of PAGA proposed amendments here.

Workplace Solutions

We will continue to monitor and report on these potential Peculiarities, as well as any other significant legislative developments over the course of the 2017 Legislative Session. Contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney with any questions.

Edited by Colleen Regan.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Social media information—pictures, status updates, location markers, “likes,” groups, and associated friends, all from the owner’s perspective and documented in real time—can be a  goldmine of information to defend employment lawsuits. Read on for thoughts on how to extract and refine this information, and what limits to observe in using it.

Social media and discovery is an area rife with potential drama: pictures of a plaintiff vacationing in Hawaii after he’s called in sick? Yes, please! How and should we access such juicy information?

Litigation-related discovery of social media content is generally permissible. The main problem is that—both in formal discovery and in other forms of fact-finding—there isn’t a complete picture on how far one can go to obtain it. Below are some tips to help employers stay in the friend-zone while using social media to their advantage in litigation.

Go Narrow! (At Least At First)

In a frequently cited case on the matter, Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012), the court debated how a defendant could use social media in litigation, and ultimately decided that there is a limited right to discover a party’s social media content. Mailhoit allowed an employer to make “particularized requests”—in that case all social media communications between the plaintiff and her current or former co-workers in any way referring to the lawsuit. But Mailhot said the employer was not entitled to look through the entirety of the plaintiff’s social media information in the hope of “concocting some inference about her state of mind,” and refused to permit other proposed, broader, discovery requests.

But even this limited discovery can be important: once relevance is shown, courts may be more likely to permit additional discovery. Mailhoit suggested that if social media posts are relevant, additional discovery may proceed.

At least one non-California court has already taken this step. In Crowe v. Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland, LLC (E.D. La. 2015), the court ordered an employee to produce an unredacted copy of his entire Facebook page, even though the employee protested that he had deactivated his account. The employer was even entitled to analyze his Facebook messages, which potentially contained a lot of useful information! If a California court can be persuaded that social media communications in some way relate to claims or defenses in the litigation, then they, too, may yield to discovery.

Private vs. Public: Gimme, Gimme!

We know that in California, since 2013, we cannot force employees or job applicants to turn over social media passwords. The California legislation on this point reflects a public policy that recognizes our unique constitutional right of privacy.

But what about publicly available information? California courts agree that there can be no expectation of privacy in publicly posted information on social media websites. See Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (Cal. App. 2009).

This means if the privacy setting on an employee’s Facebook posts is “Public”(i.e., available to anyone on or off Facebook), then anything posted is fair game for discovery. The same goes for publicly available Twitter tweets, publicly available Instagram posts, publicly available LinkedIn info, MySpace page information, etc. Presumably, if someone publicly posts elsewhere (e.g., Reddit, 4Chan, personal blogs), with a link it to the poster’s identity, then those posts may also be accessed and used.

Save, Save, Save!

Social media, like life itself, is evanescent.  Publicly available, incredibly useful information can be here one day, gone the next. Do not rely on information staying up once it is up. To best preserve currently available information, screenshot the information, or print to .pdf. Then save and wait. It doesn’t get much better than seeing the face of a plaintiff when confronted with a photo he thought he had deleted. You know the one: featuring the plaintiff himself, bleary eyed and hoisting a beer, an hour before his scheduled work shift. Or the one showing him wearing stolen merchandise. Or the one showing him partying it up while supposedly suffering from “emotional distress.”

Fake-Friending and Professional Responsibility: Don’t Be a 🙁 

“Fake-friending” is when one creates a fake profile to add a person on Facebook or other social media with the aim of gaining full access to the person’s more limited profile. Rules of professional responsibility for lawyers discourage this practice—(the American Bar Association has recognized at least four areas of concern: (1) confidentiality, (2) truthfulness in statements to others, (3) responsibility regarding non-lawyer assistants, and (4) misconduct). Conducting covert research through fake-friending may also violate California Rules of Professional Conduct, such as Rule 2-100, which forbids “communication with a represented party.” Non-attorneys may be subject to similar ethical responsibilities.  So leave intentional fake-friending out of your litigation arsenal.

Nonetheless, it is not always clear what the limits of these rules mean in practice. For example, would it be OK to accept the help of a third party who has access to shared information (for example, the plaintiff’s co-worker, who has added the plaintiff as a friend online)?

The San Diego County Bar Association released an Opinion (2011-2), stating: represented “parties shouldn’t have ‘friends’ like that and no one – represented or not, party or non-party – should be misled into accepting such a friendship.” Specifically, the opinion states that if the motive is to obtain information about the litigation, then this conduct can violate Rule 2-100 and constitute deceptive conduct forbidden by the California Business and Professions Code.

Outside of California, other jurisdictions have found that it would be unethical even to ask a third person, whose name a hostile witness will not recognize, to obtain social media information, even if the person states only truthful information.

The Future of Social Media and Regulation: “It’s Complicated”

New apps, social media websites, and ways to share information emerge every day. Unfortunately, the law and public policy often lag behind advances in technology. In some states, we’re already seeing some peculiar stuff going on. In New York, courts have since 2013 held that some service via social media can satisfy due process. In one early case, Federal Trade Comm. v. PCCare247 Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013), the court noted: “history teaches that, as technology advances and modes of communication progress, courts must be open to considering requests to authorize service via technological means of then-recent vintage, rather than dismissing them out of hand as novel.” New York courts have also indicated that social media may be considered an effective means of providing notice to potential class members in class actions. See Mark v. Gawker Media, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Workplace Solutions

If you find yourself in a pickle—“to like or not to like?”, “to friend or not to friend?”, “to snoop or not to snoop?”—remember that a friendly neighborhood Seyfarth attorney is just a poke away.

Edited by Coby M. Turner.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California’s rules on rest breaks are still developing. Recent cases have addressed the timing of rest breaks, and whether employees (particularly those who remain “on call”) must be relieved of all duty during breaks.

Our fair state has long imposed peculiar—and specific—requirements for employee work breaks. Varying interpretations of the rules for meal and rest breaks have spawned prodigious class action litigation, both before and after the California Supreme Court’s crucial 2012 decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. Accordingly, California employers have a keen interest in making their break policies and practices as compliant as possible.

But this can be hard to do while the rules remain in flux. In this post, we discuss two cases—one decided a few months ago and the other now pending before the California Supreme Court—that bring the requirements for rest breaks into finer focus. The cases raise these questions: (1) Exactly when must employers provide rest breaks? (2) Can employers require workers on break to remain “on call”?

So we invite you to “take 10” and read on.

The Basic Rule

Section 226.7 of the Labor Code says that employers can’t require employees to work during breaks mandated by an order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The IWC, in turn, has mandated (in Section 12(A) of the Wage Orders) that:

Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof.

More about that pesky phrase “insofar as practicable,” below.

Timing of Rest Breaks

The rule on rest breaks is often short-handed as “10 minutes paid rest for every four hours (or major fraction thereof) worked.” But must each rest break occur during the middle of each four-hour work period? Or can it be permissible to allow—or require—employees to combine breaks, or to schedule them at some time other than midway through the work period? And what does “insofar as practicable” mean, anyhow?

The 2016 California Court of Appeal decision in Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc. took a stab at answering. E.M.E. gave one 20-minute rest break and one meal break per eight-hour shift, due to the nature of the work and the clean-up time required at each break. Rodriguez brought a class action claiming that this practice violated Section 12(A) of the applicable Wage Order.

The Court of Appeal held that the phrase “insofar as practicable” means that employers must implement the rest schedule specified in the Wage Orders unless there is “an adequate justification why such a schedule is not capable of being put into practice, or is not feasible as a practical schedule.” More specifically, employers may depart from the Wage Order schedule (i.e., a rest break in the middle of each four-hour period or major fraction thereof) only when it (1) will “not unduly affect employee welfare” and (2) “is tailored to alleviate a material burden” on the employer that would result from using the Wage Order schedule.

Reversing summary judgment for the employer on the certified rest break claim, the Court of Appeal sent the case back to the trial court to resolve triable issues about these questions. The court highlighted two issues: (1) Was the nature of the work (i.e., sanding, painting and finishing metal parts for the aerospace industry) such that it took 10 minutes to prepare for each break and 10 minutes to ramp up again after the break? (2) Did the employees actually prefer to receive one combined 20-minute break? If E.M.E. could establish these points, then E.M.E. could use a schedule other than the one specified by the Wage Order.

Relief From All Work?

Poised for decision by the California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 233 Cal. App. 4th 1065 (2014) review granted, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 359 (2015), is the question whether an employee on a rest break must be relieved of all duties, even the duty to be on call. The employees at issue in Augustus were security guards who remained “on call” even while taking their rest breaks. The guards claimed that their “on call” status deprived them of legally compliant rest breaks. The trial court agreed and granted them summary judgment.

But then, in a refreshing display of common sense, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that on-call rest breaks are permissible. The Court of Appeal explained that although on-call hours constitute “hours worked,” an employee who is merely available to work is not actually working. Section 226.7 proscribes only work on a rest break; being on call is a compensable activity, but it is not work. This result is consistent with the point that employers may require employees on a rest break to stay on the employer’s premises because the breaks are, after all, paid. The issue of whether a rest period is compensable time (it is) is not the same as whether a rest period is a true break from work (on-call duty, when one is not called, is not work).

Yet employer hopes that the Court of Appeal had the final say on this matter were dashed when the California Supreme Court granted review of the decision. Check this space after the oral argument on this case, scheduled for September 29, 2016, to read our take on how the Supreme Court may be leaning when it comes to the issues presented in this case.

Workplace Solution

Even after Brinker, the waters continue to roil around rest break rules. We welcome your inquiries regarding any Cal-peculiar issues of employment law.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Hernandez v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a case stemming from a phishing scam, emphasizes the need for California employers to implement comprehensive data protection and data breach notification policies and practices for personal employee information under the CDPA.

A story of a company suffering a data breach tops newspaper headlines almost daily. So how can you stay out of the “fuego,” and stay compliant with California laws about your employees’ and customers’ data?

California’s Data Protection Act—“Army Of One”

In 2003 California passed the nation’s first data breach notification statute: the CDPA. Since then, over 30 states have enacted similar statutes, but California remains the national leader in privacy and data security standards.

The CDPA mandates that any business that “owns or licenses personal information about a California resident shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” And it requires a company to notify affected individuals of a data breach “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”

The CDPA takes a very broad view of personal information, defining the term to include:

  • An individual’s signature,
  • A person’s physical characteristics or description,
  • Information collected through an automated license plate recognition system, and
  • An individual’s employment and employment history.

The CDPA also requires that if a company experiences a data breach and decides to offer “identity theft prevention and mitigation services” to affected persons, then it must provide these services to affected persons for at least 12 months and at no cost. Additionally, unlike many other state laws about data breaches, the CDPA requires a company affected by a data breach to submit a sample of the data breach notification letter to the California Attorney General.

“Vultures” Go Phishing At Sprouts

What’s Phishing? In a phishing scam, a fraudulent email message appears to be legitimate, and often directs one to a spoofed website in order to dupe the recipient into divulging private personal information. The perpetrators then use this information to commit identity theft.

In March 2016, a Sprouts employee received an email purportedly from a Sprouts senior executive, asking for the 2015 W-2 statements of all Sprouts employees (which contain social security numbers). In reality, the email was sent by a third-party and was a phishing scam.

When the Sprouts employee received the phishing email, the W-2 forms of thousands of current and former employees were compiled and sent to the third-party. Sprouts later realized the error and notified the affected individuals of the data breach.

Shortly afterwards, a former Sprouts employee filed a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging violations of the CDPA and the California Unfair Competition law. The suit alleges essentially that the employer should have had procedures and policies in place to protect employee information from a phishing attack because such attacks are commonplace in the information age. A First Amended Complaint was filed on May 25, 2016, and Sprouts has not yet filed its response.

Sprouts highlights that it is important for California employers to have a data protection and data breach notification plan. Such a plan is instrumental to head off attacks by hackers and bad actors seeking private employee data to commit identity theft.

“Anything But Me”—What’s An Employer To Do?

The California Attorney General has issued annual reports analyzing data breach notices and providing recommendations to companies and employers for implementing data breach plans, including recommending that companies and employers:

  • Implement the Center for Internet Security’s Critical Security Controls as the “minimum level of information security” if they handle personal data.
    • The Attorney General has stated that“[t]he failure to implement all the Controls that apply to an organization’s environment constitutes a lack of reasonable security.”
  • Implement “strong encryption” for personal information on laptops and other portable devices, and consider full encryption on desktop computers when not in use.
  • Encrypt digital personal information when moving or sending personal information out of their secure network.
  • Encourage individuals affected by a breach of Social Security numbers or driver’s license numbers to place a fraud alert on their credit files and make this option very prominent in their breach notices.
  • Make multi-factor authentication available on consumer-facing online accounts that contain sensitive personal information.
  • Provide training to employees and contractors on data security controls.
  • Improve the readability of breach notification letters.

Seyfarth has ample experience assisting companies and employers to develop these protocols. If you have any questions about implementing a CDPA compliant data protection and data breach notification plan for employee personal information, please reach out to a member of Seyfarth’s Global Privacy and Security (GPS) Team.

Edited by Coby M. Turner.