Seyfarth Synopsis: With the widespread use of direct deposit, the thought of an employee regularly reviewing wage statements may seem inconceivable. Still, employers must ensure that their wage statements strictly comply with California law, as even trivial, inadvertent failures to do so can lead to heavy penalties. We highlight here the information to include on wage statements while pointing out some of the legal landmines trod upon by unwary employers.

Labor Code Section 226(a) Is Pain. Anyone Who Says Differently Is Selling Something.

Much like The Princess Bride, wage statements remain incredibly relevant. Section 226(a) forces employers to report nine items of information on each itemized statement that accompanies a payment of wages:

  1. gross wages earned by the employee,
  2. total hours worked by the employee,
  3. all applicable hourly rates during the pay period,
  4. all deductions taken from the employee’s wages,
  5. the net wages the employee earned,
  6. the pay period that the wage statement reflects, including the start and end date,
  7. the employee’s name and ID number (which can be the last four digits of the Social Security number (SSN)),
  8. the name and address of the legal employer, and
  9. if the employee earns a piece rate, then the number of piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece rate.

(Note that employers must also report available paid sick leave, either on the wage statement or on another document issued at the time of each wage payment.)

Avoiding the Fire Swamp: Wage Statement Line Mines to Avoid

  • If you use a payroll service to prepare the itemized wage statement, can you just “set it and forget it”? No, you can’t. Many excellent payroll services do get it just right. Meanwhile, other companies, operating nationally, have not always heeded each California-specific requirement. And they do not feel it’s their responsibility; it’s yours. They do not offer legal advice or indemnification to prevent and correct wage-statement mistakes. If you are the typical California employer, you are on your own to ensure that your wage statements are sufficiently “Cal-peculiar.”
  • If you create in-house wage statements, can you rely on your IT department to capture all the right payroll information in the format that HR has designed? No, you can’t. Many companies have lamented the discovery that the perfect wage statement designed by the legal or HR department did not emerge quite as envisioned once IT completed all the necessary programming. In the world of wage statements, for every ugly duckling turning into a swan there is a swan turning into an ugly duckling.
  • Many well-regarded employers—national behemoths and local start-ups alike—have tripped over innocent, often trivial wage-statement mistakes to fall into a pit of despair, where they’ve found themselves inundated by millions of dollars in penalties that bear little or no relation to any actual employee harm.
  • Among the alleged hyper-technical violations causing employers to spend heavily to defend themselves—and sometimes causing them to incur huge penalties—have been these:
    • Neglecting to total all the hours worked, even though the wage statement lists all the various types of hours individually.
    • Accidentally showing net wages as “zero” where an employee gets direct deposit.
    • Leaving off either the start or end date of the pay period.
    • Not showing the number of hours worked at each applicable rate.
    • Recording an incomplete employer name (“Summit” instead of “Summit Logistics, Inc.”).
    • Recording an incomplete employer address.
    • Failing to provide an employee ID number, or reporting a full nine-digit SSN instead of a four-digit SSN.
  • And remember to keep a copy of your wage statements (or to have the capability to recreate what the employees have received).

Reaching the Cliffs of Insanity: How Recent Case Law Intensifies the Impact of Section 226

By now, you surely ask, “Can it possibly get any worse than that?” Yes, it can. It has been bad enough, of course, that hyper-technical failures to show an item required by Section 226(a) could create large liability unrelated to any real harm. But, until recently, employers at least had the defense that no penalty was available absent a “knowing and intentional” violation, because that was what a plaintiff had to prove to get penalties ($50 or $100 per employee per pay period) under Section 226(e).

But now, if a recent Court of Appeal decision stands, that defense has been stripped away. Lopez v. Friant & Associates, LLC held that an employer whose wage statement failed to record an employee ID number could be subject to penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), even though the mistake was inadvertent and promptly corrected, and even though the employee admittedly suffered no injury by his employer reminding him each pay period what the last four digits of his SSN are. Lopez permitted the employee to sue for PAGA penalties without needing to prove the “injury” and “knowing and intentional” elements of a Section 226(e) claim. In short, Lopez is about as appealing as a Rodent Of Unusual Size (R.O.U.S.). See our detailed client alert on Lopez here.

Workplace Solutions: What Would Miracle Max Do

Though the exact impact of Lopez is unclear at this point (Lopez did not decide whether the extra PAGA penalty would be $250 per employee, under Section 226.3, or $100 per employee per pay period, under Section 2699(f)), Lopez rings the alarm that employers must proactively ensure that their itemized wage statements strictly comply with Section 226(a), lest they be the next to fall in the pit of despair. When is the last time you did your self-audit? Don’t hesitate to reach out to Seyfarth to help you ensure your wage statements are compliant.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Our mission here at Cal-Pecs is to illuminate how California employment law differs from the law that employers generally experience throughout America. In this back-to-basics piece, we provide some background and a brief catalog of stark contrasts.

In 1846, American settlers in Mexican Alta California staged the Bear Flag Revolt. They declared an independent republic, seeking freedom from Mexico. The rebels got lucky: the Mexican-American War soon intervened to dislodge the California territory from Mexican control. California, in 1850, became our thirty-first state.

The legacy of the Bear Flag Revolt continues: the state flag depicts a grizzly bear astride a patch of grass, above the logo “California Republic.” The underlying rebellious attitude has persisted as well. State politicians—especially since the 2016 election—have defiantly proclaimed California’s right to chart its own course on such vital matters as the environment, health care, immigration, and the right to use marijuana.

Perhaps nowhere is California’s independence more prominent than in the area of employment law. Federal labor law hit high tide in the 1930s, with the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The high tide returned in the 1960s—bringing us the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act—and returned yet again in the 1990s, bringing us the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

In the Golden State, meanwhile, the waves of employment regulation have risen ever higher, even when federal regulations have ebbed. The chart below spots differences between federal and California law in key areas of interest to employers that operate both in California and in the rest of America. In each case, of course, the California version favors employees, plaintiffs, and unions, while never favoring the employer.

Issue U.S. Law & State Law Generally California Law
What’s the minimum wage? $7.25, and higher in a few states $10.50, rising to $15 by July 2022
Must that wage be paid separately for all work, including unproductive tasks? No. Employers generally can comply with an average wage that meets the minimum. Yes. This result has surprised some employers that pay piece rate or commissions.
Must employers pay non-exempt piece-rate and commission workers separately for rest breaks? No Yes
Must employers pay non-exempt employees for required travel outside regular hours? No Yes
What overtime hours generally require premium pay? Only hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Weekly overtime plus daily overtime (over 8 hours per day) plus any time on seventh consecutive workday in a workweek.
Can employers use the “fluctuating workweek method” to compute overtime pay for salaried non-exempt employees? Yes. The regular rate is salary divided by all hours worked, with a 0.5 multiplier for overtime hours. No. The regular rate is deemed to be weekly salary divided by 40, and the overtime multiplier is 1.5, not 0.50.
Is doubletime ever required? No Yes, for hours exceeding 12 per day or 8 hours on a seventh consecutive workday.
Are there civil penalties for labor law violations? Often no, and penalties that do apply are relatively modest. Yes: for many Labor Code violations penalties are typically $100 per employee per pay period.
Can plaintiffs personally sue supervisors and co-workers under anti-harassment statutes? No Yes
Are middle managers, pharmacists, and nurses typically exempt from overtime rules? Yes No
Are employees entitled to reimbursement for routine business expenses? No Yes
What statuses do employment discrimination laws protect? Race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age over 40, disability (and sexual orientation by some judicial readings of Title VII) Those plus sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, political affiliation, marital status, breastfeeding, HIV status, requests for disability accommodation, etc.
Can employers invoke the “undue hardship defense” for religious accommodations simply by showing a cost > de minimis, and can they accommodate grooming and dress practices by transferring employees to a more remote location? Yes and yes. No and no. The “undue hardship” defense must meet the same tough test required in disability cases. And it is categorically unreasonable to accommodate a religious dress or grooming practice by moving the employee away from the public.
Can undocumented workers recover back pay on a claim for wrongful termination? No Yes; immigration status of a worker is irrelevant to any California remedy, except reinstatement of employment if prohibited by federal law.
Can an employer fire a worker who provided a false name, SSN or information about legal status to work? Yes No; an employer cannot discharge, discriminate, retaliate or take any adverse action against an employee who updates such information based on a lawful change.
What consequences do employers suffer for denying meal or rest breaks? Breaks that are too short are counted as working time. Failure to provide specified, timely breaks can result in up to two extra hours of premium pay per day.
Are “use it or lose it” vacation plans acceptable? Yes, generally. No
Is paid sick pay required? No Yes
Do farmworkers have the right to unionize, and do unions enjoy special protections with respect to their mass picketing? No and no. Yes and yes. California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act protects farmworkers, and its Moscone Act limits judicial power to prohibit mass picketing.

As this limited sample of comparisons might suggest, an employer used to doing business elsewhere can find California employment law a real bear. For more detailed treatment, see the 2017 edition of our Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different.

Seyfarth Synopsis: A court has temporarily suspended the deadline for employers to elect the statutory “safe harbor” for purposes of complying with recent legislation that makes it even more difficult for employers that pay with a piece rate rather than an hourly rate for any portion of an employee’s work.  

As we previously reported, the California Legislature’s enactment of AB 1513 (commonly known as the “piece rate pay law”), which became effective on January 1, 2016, has created significant challenges for California employers that pay employees on a piece-rate basis for any part of their work. This new law requires employers to pay piece-rate employees separately for rest and recovery periods and for “other non-productive time,” based on a specific formula, and requires detailed disclosures in wage statements.

AB 1513’s “Safe Harbor” for Past Violations

AB 1513 creates an affirmative defense to wage claims for employers that follow the law’s very specific “safe harbor” provisions. To come within the safe harbor, employers must (1) provide written notice of their intent to utilize the safe harbor procedures by no later than July 1, 2016, and (2) pay employees for all previously uncompensated rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time, plus interest, for the period from July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2015, by December 15, 2016.

Challenge to the Piece Rate Pay Law

An agricultural employer group, Nisei Farmers League, filed a lawsuit challenging AB 1513 on constitutional grounds. The lawsuit argues that AB 1513 is unconstitutionally vague, fails to provide employers with fair notice of its requirements, and is impermissibly retroactive. The League sought to enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of AB 1513, including the safe harbor, pending a trial of their claims.

On June 30, 2016, one day before the deadline to elect the safe harbor, the court entered an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. This Order restrains the Department of Industrial Relations from enforcing the deadline until at least July 18, 2016, the date of the hearing on the Order to Show Cause. If the court enters a preliminary injunction at the hearing, the DIR will be enjoined from enforcing the deadline until thirty days after the preliminary injunction expires, and from enforcing the payment requirement until 197 days after the preliminary injunction expires. If the court does not enter a preliminary injunction, then the deadline will become effective ten days later (on July 28, 2016).

What Does This Mean for Piece Rate Employers?

The Order provides piece-rate employers with some additional time (at least until July 28, 2016, and longer if the court enters a preliminary injunction) to decide whether to invoke the safe harbor if they have not already done so. Employers that already made this election may have additional time to comply with the back-pay requirements if the court enters a preliminary injunction on July 18. In either case, the many California employers struggling to comply with the unclear and burdensome requirements of AB 1513 should watch this legal challenge closely.

As 2015 drew to a close, the DLSE issued several publications regarding California’s new piece-rate legislation, AB 1513, reminding California employers that it is now even more difficult to pay employees on a piece-rate basis.

As we previously blogged here, AB 1513 added Section 226.2 to the Labor Code, effective January 1, 2016. This new law imposes significant new burdens on employers that pay employees on a piece-rate basis. Those employers now must:

  • Pay piece-rate employees for rest and recovery breaks (and all periods of “other nonproductive time”) separately from, and in addition to, their piece-rate pay. The new law specifies a formula for calculating the required pay rate for rest breaks.
  • Provide piece-rate employees with wage statements that include the employee’s total hours of compensable rest and recovery breaks, the rate of pay for those breaks, and the gross wages paid for those breaks during the pay period.
  • 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, if the employer does not pay a base hourly rate for all hours worked (in addition to piece-rate wages).

The DLSE’s new Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions are here and here. While the DLSE’s guidance is likely not the last word, it offers some further direction (and creates new questions) for employers seeking to comply. Here are some highlights:

  • Employers may not realize they have “piece rate” employees. The DLSE seems to think the new law applies to employers that pay employees only partly on a piece-rate basis. For example, an employer may pay piece rates on certain days of the work week, and pay an hourly wage on the remaining days. The DLSE’s wage-rate calculation examples indicate that during a week where an employee performs piece-rate work on some days but not others, the employer must (1) include earnings from days in which no piece-rate work was performed in calculating the average hourly wage for the week, and (2) pay the average hourly wage for all rest breaks during the week, even if the employee performed no piece work on a given day. This guidance arguably deviates from the intent of the statute, because on days where the employee performs no piece-rate work, there should be no need to have rest breaks paid at a higher hourly rate.
  • Commissions are (mostly) not “piece rates.” The DLSE offered some comfort to employers by clarifying that the new law does not apply to commissioned employees. Employers with commission plans should still consult counsel, however, as the DLSE warns that some payments labelled as “commissions” may actually constitute piece-rate pay, such as where the employee receiving “commissions” is not principally involved in selling the product or service or where the payment is not a percentage of the product or service sold.
  • Another “regular rate” trap for the unwary. The DLSE’s guidance on how to calculate the “total compensation” for the work week both creates a potential pitfall for piece-rate employers. The DLSE advises that all “remuneration” that is included in calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime premium pay (e.g., the value of meals, lodging, and other non-monetary remuneration) should also be included in determining the total compensation and average hourly rest-break rate for piece-rate employees. This DLSE advisory adds a further layer of complication to employers that were hoping to look only to the total hourly and piece rate pay in determining the average hourly rest break rate. Employers may, however, exclude payments that are not included in the regular rate of pay, such as vacation payments, gifts, and travel expenses.
  • Rest period time need not be separately tracked. Providing some relief to employers from the potential burdens of the new law, the DLSE advises that employers need not separately track actual rest break time taken by piece-rate employees. Instead, employers must pay for all compensable (legally required) rest breaks at the specified rate, and record these minutes on the wage statement. The employer need not record the actual number of minutes taken as rest break time by the employee or report the actual minutes on the employee’s wage statement.
  • New “safe harbor” election form. The DLSE issued a new form for employers to submit to the DLSE by July 1, 2016, if they wish to qualify for the “safe harbor” affirmative defense. This “safe harbor” would protect employers against claims for wages, damages, and penalties for a failure to pay for rest and recovery breaks and other nonproductive time. To come within this safe harbor, the employer would have to use one of the specified formulas for compensating piece-rate employees for all previously uncompensated rest and recovery breaks and other nonproductive time for the period from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2015. This payment would have to be made to current and former employees by December 15, 2016.

The DLSE’s focus on the statute’s “safe harbor” provisions highlights the compliance challenges for piece-rate plans and underscores the point that employers should carefully consider this option for avoiding potential back-pay liability. If you have questions regarding these issues, then please contact a member of Seyfarth’s Labor and Employment Group.

The California Legislature seems intent on ending piece-rate pay as we have known it. A law effective January 1, 2016, goes beyond the previously discussed Bluford and Gonzalez decisions to mandate that employees who earn piece-rate wages be paid a special, separate rate for rest and recovery periods, as well as for all “other non-productive time.” Further, that rate will require special calculation and the itemized wage statement must report additional information (number of hours of each activity and the corresponding rates of pay). But don’t take our word for it. Read it and weep here.

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.

Update:  In April we reported on a California appellate court decision, Gonzales v. Downtown LA Motors, which held that an employer paying on a piece-rate basis must pay a separate “hourly” rate for time spent waiting between compensable piece-rate tasks.  The California Supreme Court recently denied review in Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors.  If you are wondering what this means for employers, please read on.     

First, remind me, what was the holding in GonzalesGonzalez involved a class of car repair technicians who were paid on a per-repair basis.  The technicians brought a class action to recover unpaid minimum wages for the time they spent waiting between repairs and the time they spent performing other non-repair duties.  They claimed that because they had to remain near the shop during their shifts (so they would be available when cars arrived for repairs), they should be paid for that time.  The Court of Appeal agreed with the repair technicians, even though the employer had made sure that each technician’s total pay, on average, always met or exceeded the minimum wage.

Gonzalez represents a tenuous extension of the already troubling holding of the same appellate court in Armenta v. Osmose (Cal. App. 2005).  Armenta held that California law does not allow averaging total compensation over the total hours worked in a given pay period to meet minimum-wage requirements, because, according to Armenta, California minimum wage applies separately to each hour worked.  Gonzalez makes things worse by extending Armenta’s questionable rationale to piece-rate compensation plans.

So what does Gonzales mean for employers?  Although both Gonzales and Armenta were decided by the same court (one of six district courts of appeal) and may not be the last word on the subject, several recent decisions have reached similar conclusions regarding piece-rate pay.  For example, a federal district court, in Balasanyan v. Nordstrom, applied similar reasoning to a commission compensation plan. 

Although other district courts of appeal may reach different conclusions, and although the California Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on the subject, for now Gonzales can be cited as binding precedent.  Thus, employers should carefully examine their piece-rate compensation plans and the facts of the recent piece-rate cases to determine whether there is a potential argument that certain tasks performed by their workers are not fully covered by their piece-rate plan.  If there is an argument that certain tasks are not completely covered by the piece-rate plan, then employers may want to reduce the risk of a potential lawsuit by restructuring their compensation plans.   

Employers should also continue to closely watch subsequent cases involving piece-rate compensation plans in the event a split of authority develops among California’s appellate courts.  Although the California Supreme Court chose not to review the Gonzales case, the issue of what may be compensated as part of a piece-rate compensation plan and what must be separately compensated is still in flux and may eventually make its way to the California Supreme Court.

If you are employing piece-rate employees who don’t get paid for downtime, California Courts have just given you a piece of their minds. 

In Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, a group of car repair technicians who were paid on a piece-rate basis brought a class action to recover unpaid minimum wages for the time they spent waiting between repairs.  They claimed that because they had to remain near the shop during their shifts so that they would be available when cars arrived for repairs, they should be paid for that time. 

The employer argued it had paid enough because each technician’s total pay, on average, always met or exceeded the minimum wage. The employer would calculate the total hours each technician worked each pay period—including hours spent waiting for repair work or performing other tasks covered by the piece-rate—and then multiplied this total by the minimum wage.  The employer would supplement the technician’s pay to cover any shortfall.

What did the Court do?  The Court disagreed with this calculation.  It awarded $1.5 million to the class in minimum wages for their downtime and another $237,840 in penalties for a willful failure to pay wages.  The Court of Appeal affirmed and in doing so, extended the reasoning of a 2005 decision, Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., which involved hourly maintenance workers servicing utility poles in remote locations who were paid for “productive” hours, but not for hours considered “nonproductive”—such as travel time. The employer in Armenta argued, much like in Gonzalez, there was no violation because total pay exceeded the total hours worked (both paid and unpaid) times the minimum wage. But the Armenta Court ruled that California law doesn’t allow averaging total compensation over the total hours worked in a given pay period to meet minimum-wage requirements.   California minimum wage applies separately to each hour worked.

The Gonzalez Court applied Armenta’s reasoning to the piece-rate context on the theory that because the technicians were under their employer’s control for their entire shift—whether or not they were actually performing repairs—all hours of the shift were compensable. Therefore, because the technicians were paid piece-rates for only the time spent on repair work, the employer had failed to pay the minimum wage for each of the remaining hours.

So What Now?  Gonzalez is a case of first impression, but employers should be aware that it may signal a trend.  A federal district court, in Balasanyan v. Nordstrom, also recently applied similar reasoning to commissioned employees.  In both Gonzalez and Armenta we expect the losing employers to seek further judicial review, but for now, employers paying on a piece-rate or commission basis must consider revamping their pay systems to separately pay the minimum wage rate for hours during which employees are subject to the employer’s control and not earning a piece rate or commission. 

A more detailed look on Gonzalez can be found here.