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
Continue Reading No Rest for the Weary: California Law on Rest Breaks
On April 4, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 3, increasing the statewide minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. The increase will be phased in over the next six years.
First introduced in the state Senate by Senator Leno on December 1, 2014, SB 3, was subject to contentious debate on both the Assembly and Senate Floors on March
Continue Reading Governor Signs Bill Building Staircase to Minimum Wage Heaven
With March Madness in full swing, we interrupt your crumbling tournament brackets to ensure you’re aware of a truly maddening development. California law now makes individuals potentially liable for employer violations of many often-convoluted wage and hour rules.
That’s right—individuals, not just companies, may be liable for wage and hour violations.
We mentioned this legislation here last Fall,
Continue Reading Who me? Yes, YOU: Personal Liability For Wage Hour Violations
From high profile cases in Hollywood to the Silicon Valley, to high-profile legislation, gender pay equity has been top of the news in the past year. On January 1, 2016, the California Fair Pay Act — widely publicized as the toughest (gender) pay equity law in the nation — became effective. Other states (Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Continue Reading Pay Equity Legislation: Not Just Gender Anymore
Quintessential early adapters and always on the go, we Californians love change, and we start trends. That’s good. There has been plenty of change this past year in the world of California labor and employment law. As Father Time prepares to tender his timekeeping duties to Baby New Year, let’s take a moment off the clock to look back at
Continue Reading OUT WITH THE OLD; RING IN THE NEW
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
Continue Reading Governor’s Pen Sends Anti-Employment Arbitration Bill to the Grave
“The rest is silence.” So spake Hamlet, as he expired on stage. Lawyers love wordplay. Webster defined it as the “playful or clever use of words.” Google defines wordplay as “the witty exploitation of the meanings and ambiguities of words, especially in puns.” Shakespeare was the king of wordplay; his exuberant punning, much like Hamlet’s famous last words, has kept literary critics debating for centuries over their meaning.
Lawyers especially enjoy the wordplay game of statutory interpretation, which many regard as the highest form of intellectual fodder. No one can deny that wage and hour litigation often arises out of the exploration (or exploitation) of seemingly innocuous words in California’s Labor Code. Perhaps the most litigated word in recent years was “provide”—until the California Supreme Court issued, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the final word on an employer’s duty to “provide” meal periods.
Currently in the hot seat are lesser-known words, contained in the Labor Code’s “day of rest” provisions:
Adding further to the confusion, the IWC Wage Orders acknowledge that an employee will sometimes work more than six consecutive days. They state that Sections 551 and 552 shall not be construed to prevent an accumulation of days of rest when “the nature of the employment reasonably requires the employee to work seven (7) or more consecutive days; provided, however, that in each calendar month, the employee shall receive the equivalent of one (1) day’s rest in seven (7).”
Employers have grappled with what it means to “cause” an employee to work six days in seven, what it means to provide “one day’s rest in seven,” and when the day of rest requirement is excused. Wage and hour litigation has exploited the ambiguity in these statutes. But the California Supreme Court now has an opportunity to provide some clarity.Continue Reading Mendoza v. Nordstrom: Court to Define “Day of Rest”
Say most of your company’s workers are employees, but for certain types of work you bring in independent contractors. You have been doing this for years, and everybody in your industry handles this kind of work the same way. You have nothing to worry about, right?
Not necessarily. Employers use independent contractors instead of employees for a variety of reasons and under a variety of circumstances. The decision to use independent contractors has never been without risk, including the risk of class action lawsuits. However, the stakes in California for misclassifying independent contractors were raised significantly when new Labor Code sections 226.8 and 2753 became effective on January 1, 2012. In addition to possibly having to pay the worker as an employee for past labor (including paying back employment taxes and maybe overtime wages), you now have to be concerned about the potential for additional civil penalties.
Willful Misclassification: California Labor Code Section 226.8 makes it unlawful to “willfully” misclassify individuals as independent contractors. “Willful misclassification” means avoiding employee status for an individual by voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying that individual as an independent contractor. This section also makes it unlawful to charge a willfully-misclassified contractor a fee or to make any deductions from compensation for any purpose, including for goods, materials, space rental, services, government licenses, repairs, equipment maintenance, or fines.
The California DLSE has been busy! Following the May release of A Report on the State of The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement by Labor Commissioner, Julie A. Su, the DLSE issued a press release highlighting “record-breaking results for labor law enforcement in California.” The news is that, in 2012, the field investigators assessed 462% more in minimum wages and
Continue Reading California Department of Labor Standards Ratchets Up Enforcement Activity
As many employers know, California’s new written commission agreement law (Labor Code Section 2751) became effective on January 1, 2013. This new law requires employers that pay California employees “commissions” to do the following:
1. have a written contract with the employee regarding commissions that is signed by the employer;
2. include in the contract the method for
Continue Reading Got It In Writing? Rules for Commissioned Employee Pay Agreements
