Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issues a yearly report describing its complaint and litigation trends. Below is the Reader’s Digest™ version.

The DFEH recently issued its 2017 Annual Report covering its fifth year in active litigation. In 2013, the California Legislature authorized the DFEH to file lawsuits under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California’s stricter version of federal anti-discrimination law, as well as under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Disabled Persons Act, and the Ralph Civil Rights Act. Over the years, the DFEH’s operations have expanded to 220 fulltime employees, including attorneys, investigators, paralegals, and mediators, working from five California offices. (That is likely bigger than most California law firms and corporate legal departments.) The DFEH is presently the largest state civil rights agency in the country, with the power to launch state-wide representative actions for uncapped damages, attorney fees and costs, and injunctive relief, such as requiring new or revised policies and employee training.

Opening the Door to More Complaints. The DFEH over the last year launched a series of initiatives making it easier to file a civil rights complaint in California. The centerpiece of the effort was a new case filing and management system, called Cal Civil Rights System (CCRS). It allows employees and tenants to file a complaint and trigger a state-led investigation process using an online platform. Now individuals, from the comfort of their living rooms, can file a complaint, schedule appointments with investigators, check on case status, submit notes and documents, request right to sue letters, and even make public records requests.

Given this new ease of access, it is no surprise that DFEH filings increased during 2017. The DFEH received nearly 25,000 administrative complaints and inquiries. That is a 5% jump from 2016 and 2015 (which had roughly the same number) and substantially more than the 19,000 filed in 2014. About 90% of 2017 complaints were employment-related, 5% were housing matters, and the remainder fell under the Unruh, Ralph, and Disabled Persons Acts. Approximately 19,000 complaints resulted in formal charges filed with the DFEH. About one-half of complaints, or 12,872, requested an immediate right to sue, thereby bypassing any investigation or vetting by the DFEH before involving the courts.

What is striking about the DFEH’s report is the number of age discrimination and retaliation complaints made in 2017. Almost 20% of employment complaints in 2017 were for age discrimination (up from 11% in 2016). The largest portion of charges requesting a right-to-sue asserted age discrimination and retaliation—totaling 30% of the bases alleged. Disability was the next most commonly asserted basis in 2017; charges asserting disability exceeded the number of ancestry, religion, national origin, marital status, color, and sexual orientation discrimination charges combined.

Los Angeles County was the most litigious region in 2017. Employees and residents of the County of Angels filled out 30% of the DFEH’s total docket. Los Angeles County also ran the board in every type of complaint within the DFEH’s jurisdiction: 21% of employment, 22% of Ralph Act, 25% of Disabled Persons Act, and 30% of housing-related complaints. Orange and San Diego Counties were the second and third most active regions, with 8% and 6% of complaints, respectively. Sacramento County—not San Francisco, Santa Clara, or other more populated areas—has surprisingly been the source of the most DFEH complaints in Northern California, for three years running. Placer County’s 139 complaints in 2017 makes it the most charge-happy county in California by population size (it also won this top-honor in 2016).

The DFEH’s report provides some demographic information on the 2017 class of complainants. Over the last year, 52% of complainants disclosed their race and 35% stated their national origin when filing with the DFEH. The largest group of reporters identified as Caucasian (32.5%) and American (52%), which is consistent with 2016 figures. Individuals identifying as Hispanic or Latino brought 28% of charges in 2017, and those reporting as African American filed 23% (also tracking 2016 statistics). The DFEH has not to date elected to track other demographic data regarding complainants, such as age, sex, gender, marital status, household income, or religion.

Investigations and Settlement Revenues Spiked. The DFEH saw a 22% increase in investigations to 6,160 in 2017. Only 888 of these complaints settled, or 14%, which is a 7% drop from 2016. The remaining 5,000 plus charges, presumably, carried over into 2018, were withdrawn by the claimant, resolved through private negotiation, dismissed by the DFEH, or consolidated with an overlapping charge.

The DFEH had a fruitful year in terms of settlement revenues. It netted 12% more in 2017, bringing $12,984,367 to state coffers. Notably, this figure does not count monies generated through settling any of the 35 civil complaints filed by the DFEH in 2017. The DFEH’s most successful year in terms of pre-lawsuit settlement revenues appears to have been in 2013, with $13,433,922.

The data suggest that the cost to settle a complaint increases as the matter moves through the DFEH’s review process. Cases settled for $8,966 on average within the Enforcement Division, the DFEH’s investigative arm. Where the parties agreed to participate in the voluntary dispute resolution process, it took $14,122 on average to resolve it. Once the matter reached a pre-suit posture, in mandatory dispute resolution, it cost employers $42,513 on average to settle. And after the case was referred to the Legal Division and DFEH attorneys got involved, the average settlement figure was $42,860. Early resolution efforts evidently pay off.

The DFEH Hand-Picks Charges It Brings to Court. The DFEH filed 35 lawsuits in 2017. That is less than 1% of the 6,160 complaints investigated by the Enforcement Division. The DFEH then referred 140 of those charges, or 2%, to the DFEH’s attorneys in the Legal Division. Only one-quarter of these matters ended up in litigation.

Complaints referred to the Legal Division split almost evenly between housing and employment matters. Housing cases made up 40%, followed closely by employment complaints at 39%, and Unruh Act charges at 24%. No Disabled Persons Act claims were sent to legal in 2017. These figures are largely in line with the DFEH’s 2016 referrals, although notably there was a 21% increase in Unruh Act charges considered for litigation in 2017. In 2015, the DFEH gave much more priority to employment matters, making up 56% of charges passed on to its lawyers.

While age discrimination complaints picked up in 2017, the DFEH did not give such claims preference. None of its lawsuits asserted a claim for age discrimination. Disability discrimination continued to be the DFEH’s focus, as it was in 2015 and 2016. The theory was asserted in 11 employment, seven housing, and eight Unruh-related lawsuits–or roughly 74% of cases. Retaliation was a close second with 10 such civil actions. Sexual harassment complaints slightly increased year over year from four to six. Discrimination based on religion, ancestry, and national origin resulted in less than a handful of suits over the last three years.

Key Takeaways. Each year the DFEH’s focus appears to shift towards litigation. Referrals from its enforcement to legal divisions have crept up over the years from 98 in 2014 to 140 in 2017. Recent technological changes to the DFEH’s claims and investigation process have brought new efficiencies within the agency and freed staff to give more individual attention to cases.

As the DFEH steps up its game, so should employers. Well-written policies and regular trainings are two ways to curtail bad employee behavior, ensure compliance with the law, and stay off the DFEH’s radar altogether (not to mention boost morale and productivity in the workplace). Los Angeles and Sacramento employers, in particular, should make this a priority given the number of charges filed each year from their own backyards.

When a complaint is made with the DFEH, get counsel involved early. The 2017 data show that claims resolve for the least amount of dough at the investigation stage. Companies that drag their feet may end up dealing with the legal department, where the chance of getting sued rockets up from 1% to 25%. Given our recent experience, it would be no surprise if this figure increased further in 2018. We will report on that next Summer, as we did on the DFEH’s report last year. Seyfarth Shaw is ready to assist in the meantime on ways to proactively avoid complaints, timely address DFEH inquires, and defend charges and litigation.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  June 7, 2018, when the city’s new Paid Sick Leave rules take effect, marks the latest chapter in the City by the Bay’s long history of imposing local employment standards that exceed state requirements. Here’s what you need to know before this latest San Francisco peculiarity begins.

On May 7, 2018, after considering public input on proposed rules to the City’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (PSLO), the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) published new rules interpreting the PSLO, which is the granddaddy of municipal paid sick leave (PSL) mandates. The OLSE enacted its original interpretative PSL rules in May 2007. More recently, on January 1, 2017, the OLSE amended the PSLO. Now, nearly 18 months later, updated rules will take effect on June 7, 2018. Highlights of some key aspects follow.

Joint Employers

The PSLO broadly defines “Employer” as “any person…who directly or indirectly…employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of an employee.”

The new rules state that if an employee is jointly employed, and at least one employer is covered by the PSLO, each employer must comply with the PSLO. The rules follow California law to determine if an employee is jointly employed. The OLSE notes, by way of example, that joint employment can occur when an employer uses a temporary staffing agency, leasing agency, or professional employer organization. The new rules further state that a “controlled group of corporations” (as defined by the IRS Code), is considered to be a single employer under the PSLO. Employees of unincorporated businesses also are counted as working for one employer if the business satisfies the IRS’s “controlled group of corporations” definition.

Documentation

Under the PSLO, an employer may only take reasonable measures to verify or document an employee’s use of PSL. As stated in the OLSE’s original PSL rules, employers generally can require employees to provide reasonable documentation justifying their use of PSL for absences of more than three consecutive full or partial workdays. The new rules further explain that employer policies requiring a doctor’s note or other documentation when employees use PSL (a) to attend a medical appointment, or (b) in situations of a pattern or clear instance of abuse will be presumptively reasonable even if the use of PSL was for three consecutive workdays or less.

Rate of Pay

The new rules also provide guidance on calculating employees’ rate of pay for used sick leave and generally track the California statewide standards. Like the CA law,  San Francisco’s new PSL rules require different rate of pay calculations for exempt and non-exempt employees. Although the PSLO does not define “regular rate of pay” or “exempt employee,” the new rules defer to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay, and state that an employee’s exempt or non-exempt status is based on whether the employee is exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA and California law. If an individual is exempt, and no other forms of paid leave are provided, the employee must be paid his or her salary without any deduction for sick time taken. However, the time taken can be applied against the employee’s sick leave balance.

Rehired Employees and Breaks in Service

Under the PSLO, employees are entitled to use accrued PSL beginning on the 90th day of employment. For rehired employees, if an employee separates from the employer and is rehired by the same employer within one year, all previously accrued, unused PSL must be reinstated.

In instances where an employee separates from an employer before the 90th day of employment and is rehired within one year, the new rules clarify that the original period of employment is counted toward satisfying the 90-day usage waiting period. For example, if an employee separates from an employer after working for 45 days, and then one month later is rehired, the employee must work another 45 days before the employer needs to permit the employee to use his or her accrued PSL.

Unionized Workforces

The new rules make clear that many PSL practices or policies that have been deemed reasonable in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) remain so, even if the CBA does not explicitly waive or reference the corresponding PSLO section. This can include practices or policies about notification, verification, increments of time in which paid sick leave must be taken, and sick leave pay rate.

The Upshot

In its introduction to the new rules, the OLSE stated that it was guided by the need to provide clear direction to employers and employees about the PSLO. While these new rules clarify certain gray areas under the PSLO, it remains to be seen whether they will result in further clarification or modifications to the OLSE’s interpretation of the Ordinance.

To stay up-to-date on San Francisco, California, and general Paid Sick Leave developments, click here to sign up for Seyfarth’s Paid Sick Leave mailing list.

Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring employers to provide a private “lactation location” where new mothers can pump their milk as well as a “lactation break” during the work day, in addition to other amenities. The ordinance is effective January 1, 2018 and is more expansive than current state and federal law requiring employers to make reasonable efforts to provide lactation breaks throughout the workday. In the wake of its passage and the approaching effective date, the City’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and Department of Public Health are issuing administrative guidance for employers.

San Francisco’s Lactation Ordinance Is More Comprehensive Than State and Federal Law

As we wrote a few months ago, San Francisco’s Lactation in the Workplace Ordinance goes into effect January 1, 2018. Virtually all San Francisco employers are covered; there is no minimum employee threshold that may exempt smaller employers from coverage. This latest ordinance is another example of the City’s ongoing effort to enact employment regulations with the goal of either addressing a perceived need in the absence of state or federal law (such as the City’s 2007 paid sick leave ordinance that went into effect over eight years before the California version) or, in the case of the lactation ordinance, exceed the requirements of existing law.

The ordinance calls for a private “lactation location” that must meet several requirements. The lactation location must not be a bathroom and must be (1) shielded from view, (2) free from intrusion by other employees or the public, (3) available as needed, (4) “in close proximity to employees’ work area,” and (5) safe, clean, and free of toxic hazardous materials. The employer also is required to provide the employee with a place to sit, a table/desk or surface to place a breast pump and personal items, access to electricity, a sink with running water, and a refrigerator. The ordinance also states that lactation break time “shall, if possible” run concurrently with any break time already provided to the employee, such as unpaid rest periods.

The ordinance’s requirements are certainly rooted in an important public policy addressing the health of new mothers and babies.  But potential problems arise from the ordinance’s use of vague phrases such as “close proximity to employees’ work area.” How close does “close proximity” mean: the same room? Down the hall? In the same building? This means the ordinance is in dire need of clarification to help both employers and employees comply with its novel terms. Enter the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and Department of Public Health to provide guidance.

Administrative Guidance Sheds Light On Compliance Expectations

Perhaps recognizing its own shortcomings, the ordinance requires the San Francisco Department of Public Health to provide employers with guidance for best practices for accommodation, as well as a model policy and model lactation accommodation request form.  To that end, the Department recently posted samples of a Lactation Accommodation Policy and Request for Lactation Accommodation that employers may use in its own operations or as guidance to develop its own policies.

The Department also posted a summary of legal requirements and best practices.  The summary is based on the previous public memo issued by Supervisor Katy Tang, who is the supervisor responsible for drafting and proposing the ordinance.  Interestingly, the “best practices” include “optional but highly recommended amenities” such as a hospital-grade breast pump, calendar or room reservation system, a full length mirror, Wi-Fi, “resource station” for educational literature, and lockers to place personal belongings. They also suggest temporary reduced hours, job sharing, flex time, telecommuting, and allowing the caregiver to bring the child to workplace for feedings. The ordinance currently does not require these amenities, but these best practices may foretell an expectation of how the City may interpret (or amend) the ordinance down the road.

City regulators may also issue interpreting regulations, but that would require adherence to a lengthy rulemaking process that would include the opportunity for stakeholders to provide public comment. We have been in frequent contact with the helpful analysts at the OLSE regarding additional guidance, and have been told that they are still working on the guidance in anticipation of the January 1, 2018 effective date.  Of course, we will continue to update readers on any future developments.

Workplace Solutions

The ordinance requires San Francisco employers to issue its lactation accommodation policy to employees, so employers should review and, if necessary, update their policies to comply.  While the City has posted a sample policy and request form, sample policies are not always right for every employer.  As always, employers still should ensure that any policy they implement and enforce is right for their own operations.

If you would like assistance with a review of your policies, please feel free to contact one of Seyfarth Shaw’s attorneys.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Since the days of Buddy the Elf’s short stint as a retail employee, New York City and many other municipalities have adopted predictive scheduling laws. Though California does not yet have a such a law, San Francisco, Emeryville, and San Jose have adopted predictive scheduling ordinances. With the bustling holiday season upon us, covered employers should make sure that they are complying with these ordinances. We highlight here the requirements of these predictive scheduling ordinances while pointing out some of the best ways to ensure compliance with them.

San Francisco’s Formula Retail Employee Rights Ordinances. Francisco! That’s Fun to Say! Francisco… Frannncisco… Franciscooo…

Which employers are covered? San Francisco’s Formula Retail Employee Rights Ordinances apply to retail establishments with at least 40 locations worldwide and 20 or more employees in San Francisco. The term “retail establishment” is defined loosely to cover many businesses. An employer is considered a retail establishment if it maintains at least two of the following features: a standardized array of merchandise, a standardized facade, a standardized decor and color scheme, uniform apparel, standardized signage, a trademark, or a servicemark. Thus, a food establishment may be considered a retail establishment under the Ordinances. (We know what you are thinking, and no: covered food establishments are not limited to those serving the four main elf food groups—you know, candy, candy canes, candy corns, and syrup.)

In addition to applying to retail establishments, the provisions apply to property services contractors (e.g., janitorial and security services) for work performed in San Francisco at a retail establishment covered by the Ordinances.

What is required under the law? Employers that are covered by San Francisco’s Ordinances are required to do the following:

  • Provide notice:
    • Provide new employees with an initial estimate of their work schedules upon hire. This estimate must include the minimum number of working and on-call shifts the employee can expect to work and the days and hours of those shifts.
    • Provide employees with notice of their work schedules at least two weeks (14 days) in advance.
  • Provide compensation for changes to schedules:
    • If a change is made to an employee’s schedule after the work schedule has been posted, the employer may be required to compensate the employee for the changes. If between 24 hours and seven days remain until the shift, employees are entitled to one hour of pay at regular rate; if employees receive less than 24 hours’ notice, they are entitled to two hours of pay at regular rate for each shift of four hours or less, and four hours of pay at regular rate for each shift of more than four hours.
    • If an employee is scheduled for an on-call shift but is ultimately not required to come into work, then the employee is entitled to two hours of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate for each shift of four hours or less, and four hours of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate for each shift of more than four hours.
  • Exceptions: Notice and compensation are not required if a change was needed to address unexpected employee absences due to illness, vacation, or employer-provided time off of which the employer had less than seven days’ notice. Similarly, notice and compensation are not required if a change was needed to address unexpected employee absences due to failure to report to work, termination, or disciplinary action. Similarly, employees are not entitled to notice or compensation when they have to work overtime. To review all of the applicable exceptions, click here.
  • Offer additional work: Before hiring new employees the employer must first offer the additional work to existing qualified part-time employees.
  • Equal treatment: Employers must treat part-time and full-time employees equally with respect to wages, access to time off, and promotion eligibility.

Key Points to Remember About Emeryville’s Fair Workweek Ordinance if You Want to Avoid the Naughty List

Which employers are covered? Emeryville’s Fair Workweek Ordinance applies to retail firms with 56 or more employees globally, and fast food firms with 56 or more employees globally and 20 or more employees within Emeryville. The term “retail firm” is defined narrowly and includes department stores and specialty retailers. A fast food firm is one that does not serve alcohol and that requires patrons to pay before they eat. So if you are serving up the “World’s Best Cup of Coffee” in Emeryville, you just might be covered by the City’s Ordinance.

What is required under the law? Employers that are covered by the Emeryville Ordinance must do the following:

  • Provide notice:
    • Provide new employees with an initial estimate of their work schedules upon hire. This estimate must include a good faith estimate of the employee’s work schedule.
    • Provide employees with notice of their work schedules at least two weeks (14 days) in advance.
  • Provide compensation for changes to schedules:
    • If a change is made to an employee’s schedule after the work schedule has been posted, the employer may be required to compensate the employee for the changes. If between 24 hours and 14 days remain until the shift, the employee is entitled to one hour of pay at their regular rate. If less than 24 hours’ notice is provided and the employee’s hours are canceled or reduced, the employee is entitled to four hours or the number of hours in the scheduled shift, whichever is less. Employees are entitled to one hour of pay at their regular rate for all other changes.
  • Exceptions: As with San Francisco’s Ordinances, Emeryville’s Ordinance contains exceptions. Emeryville has far fewer exceptions, however, than San Francisco does. For instance, requiring an employee to work overtime constitutes a change under the Emeryville Ordinance and entitles the employee to additional pay.
  • Offer of additional work: Before hiring new employees, the employer must first offer the additional work to existing qualified part-time employees.
  • Entitlement to rest periods: Employers must not schedule or require an employee to work during rest periods, without the employee’s consent. The rest period includes the first 11 hours after the end of the previous calendar day’s shift and the first 11 hours following the end of a shift that spanned two calendar days. Employees who agree to work during the rest period are entitled to compensation at one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay.

San Jose’s Elf-Sized Predictive Scheduling Ordinance

Though San Jose’s Opportunity to Work Ordinance is not, strictly speaking, a predictive scheduling law, the ordinance does require employers to offer additional work to existing qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees. To learn more about San Jose’s Ordinance, click here.

I Like to Comply, Complying’s My Favorite

Though navigating the San Francisco, Emeryville, and San Jose predictive scheduling ordinances is not as difficult as navigating one’s way through the seven levels of the Candy Cane forest, through the sea of swirly twirly gum drops, and out the Lincoln Tunnel, we want to help employers make sure that they are compliant. Here are some tips to help covered employers navigate these predictive scheduling laws:

  • Employers should be sure to keep their employees informed by providing employees with predictive scheduling policies.
  • To the extent possible, employers should try not to change employee schedules after they have been posted. That would be the simplest way to avoid liability under the Emeryville and San Francisco ordinances.
  • At least with respect to covered employees working in San Francisco, employers should minimize or eliminate the use of on-call shifts, except where necessary. Remember, absent limited exceptions, on-call employee who call in and learn their services are not required will be entitled to predictability pay.
  • Though the ordinances do not require communications regarding schedule changes to be in writing, employers would be wise not to solely rely on oral exchanges. It is best to have a signed, written record of schedule receipt and schedule changes.
  • Though the holiday season is an especially busy time for many employers, they should avoid hiring seasonal employees until they have offered the additional hours that they need covered to existing part-time employees.
  • At least in Emeryville, employers should try not to ask employees to work overtime. A covered Emeryville employee who works overtime is not only entitled to compensation at one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay, but also entitled to one hour of predictability pay.

Workplace Solutions

With the holiday season upon us, employers have a lot to do. One important thing to do is to take the time to comply with any predictive scheduling law. Keep in mind that while California is peculiar, it is not the only place where one can find predictive scheduling laws. Don’t hesitate to reach out to Seyfarth to help you determine whether you are a covered employer under any state or municipal predictive scheduling laws.

Edited by Coby Turner.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  After two previous failed attempts, California joins seven other U.S. jurisdictions to prohibit inquiries into an applicant’s salary history.  Read on for a recap of the new law.

With Governor Jerry Brown signing AB 168 into law today, California joins Delaware, Puerto Rico, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York City, Philadelphia (currently pending legal challenge), and its own city of San Francisco in prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for “salary history information.” This term includes both compensation and benefits.

AB 168 will add section 432.3 to the California Labor Code. While Section 432.3 will prohibit employers from asking about or relying on prior salary information in deciding whether to offer a job and in deciding how much to pay, Section 432.3 will give employers a pass when an applicant, “voluntarily and without prompting,” discloses salary history information. In that case, Section 432.3 will not prohibit the employer from relying upon the volunteered information in setting the applicant’s starting salary. But note that the California Fair Pay Act (Lab. Code § 1197.5(a)(2)) forbids employers to rely on prior salary, by itself, to justify any disparity in pay.

Section 432.3 will also make California the first jurisdiction in the country to require that employers provide applicants with the pay scale for a position, upon “reasonable request.”

Section 432.3 will apply to “all employers”—both private and public—and will become effective January 1, 2018.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Governor Jerry Brown has till October 15 to approve bills the Legislature sent to his desk by its Friday, September 15, deadline, including bills that would require employers to ”show us the money” for certain employees and to make “mum be the word” for an applicant’s past conviction history.

The 2017 California Legislative Session kicked off on January 4, 2017, with lawmakers introducing over 2,200 bills. Of the many employment-related bills introduced, only a small handful made the Legislative cut. But some, addressed below, could have significant impacts on employers. Will the Governor sign or veto these possible new California peculiarities? We’ll know by his October 15 signing deadline. (Wondering what bills did not make the cut? We’ll include those in our post-October 15 wrap-up.)

Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act. AB 1209—called by some the “public shaming of California employers” bill—would require employers with at least 500 California employees to, beginning July 1, 2019, collect information on differences in pay between male and female exempt employees, by job classification and title, and male and female Board members. The bill would require employers submit the information to the California Secretary of State by July 1, 2020, in a form consistent with Labor Code § 1197.5 (California’s fair pay statute), and, to provide an update to the Secretary every two years. The bill would require the Secretary to publish the information on a public website if the Legislature provides it with sufficient funding. For more detail, click through to our in-depth analysis on AB 1209.

Salary Inquiry Ban. AB 168 would prohibit employers from relying on an applicant’s salary history when deciding whether to offer employment and what salary to offer, and from seeking an applicant’s salary history. The bill expressly authorizes employers, in setting pay, to consider salary history that an applicant discloses voluntarily and without prompting, but affirms Labor Code § 1197.5’s prohibition against using salary history by itself to justify a disparity in pay. The bill would require an employer to provide a job applicant with the position’s pay scale upon reasonable request. The bill would apply to all employers but not to salary information available to the public pursuant to the California Public Records Act or the Freedom of Information Act. This bill comes on the heels of last year’s fair pay legislation AB 1676 and Governor Brown’s veto of AB 1017 (last year’s bill to prohibit salary history inquiries), which veto (he explained) was an effort to give SB 358 (the Fair Pay Act) a chance to work. The new bill also follows in the footsteps of similar legislation in San Francisco, New York City, Philadelphia (stayed pending legal challenge), Delaware, Puerto Rico, Oregon and Massachusetts.

Prior Conviction History of Applicants. AB 1008, dubbed the “Scarlet Letter Act,” by Assembly Member Kevin McCarty on the Assembly Floor, would repeal existing Labor Code § 432.9 and add a section to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which would prohibit an employer with five or more employees from (1) including on any employment application a question seeking disclosure of a job applicant’s conviction history, (2) inquiring into or considering an applicant’s conviction history until after extending a conditional offer of employment, and (3) while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an employment application, considering, distributing, or disseminating information related to (a) certain arrests not followed by a conviction, (b) referral to or participation in a pretrial or post trial diversion program, and (c) convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated.

As to an employer that intends to deny employment to a job applicant because of the applicant’s conviction history, this bill would also require the employer to:

  • Make an individualized assessment of whether the conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job—considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the time passed since the offense and completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job held or sought.
  • Notify the applicant in writing of a preliminary decision to deny employment based on that individualized assessment, including disqualifying convictions forming the basis for rescission of the employment offer, a copy of the applicant’s conviction history report, and explanation of the applicant’s right to respond to the preliminary decision before it is final.
  • Allow the applicant specified periods of time to respond, then consider information submitted by the applicant before making a final decision, and then notify the applicant in writing of the final denial or disqualification, of any existing procedure the employer has for the applicant to challenge the decision, and of the right to file a complaint with the DFEH.

The bill’s provisions would not apply to positions with criminal justice agencies, state or local agencies required to conduct background checks, farm labor contractors, and employers required by state, federal, or local law to conduct background checks or restrict employment based on criminal history. The bill would also repeal (because this section would replace) a Labor Code provision prohibiting state or local agencies from asking an applicant for employment to disclose conviction history information.

Reproductive Health. AB 569 would add a provision to the Labor Code prohibiting an employer from taking adverse employment action against an employee or the employee’s dependents or family members for their reproductive health decisions, including the use of any drug, device, or medical service (e.g., birth control, abortions, or in vitro fertilization). An employer that violates this prohibition would be subject to penalties under Labor Code § 98.6, as well as reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest, and other appropriate compensation or equitable relief. This bill would prohibit employers from attempting to contract out of these requirements, by making null and void any express or implied agreement waiving these requirements. The bill would require employers to include a notice of these employee rights and remedies in its handbook.

This bill is the Legislature’s response to the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, to provide employees of religiously affiliated institutions the same benefits and protections as other California employees, unless the employee is the functional equivalent of minister, subject to a “ministerial exception” as developed in First Amendment case law. The Legislature agrees with Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, that the ministerial exception should apply only to an “employee who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.” Supporters of this bill cite cases of employees being fired for getting pregnant while unmarried. The bill’s author, Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, stated on the Assembly floor that this bill “[is] an issue of basic health, privacy and worker rights.” The bill expressly states that it supplements, and does not limit, any right or remedy available under FEHA.

New Parent Leave Act and Parental Leave DFEH Mediation Pilot Program SB 63, the “New Parent Leave Act” would—through a new section added to the California Family Rights Act—extend CFRA’s protections to smaller employers (with at least 20 employees within 75 miles). The bill would prohibit those employers from refusing to allow employees with more than 12 months and at least 1,250 hours of service 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. The bill would provide that an employer employing both parents who both are entitled to leave for the same child need not give more than 12 weeks of leave total to the employees (which may be granted simultaneously if the employer chooses). Further, an employer would be able to recover the costs of maintaining the health plan for employees who decide not to return to work after their leave exhausts because of a reason other than a serious health condition or other circumstances beyond the employee’s control.

SB 63 would also require the DFEH, when it receives funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program under which an employer may request all parties to participate in mediation within 60 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice. The bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions (and toll the statute of limitations) until the mediation is complete. The mediation is considered complete when either party elects not to participate or withdraws from mediation, or notifies the DFEH that further mediation would be fruitless.

Retaliation: Expanding The Labor Commissioner’s Authority. SB 306 would authorize the DLSE to investigate an employer, with or without a complaint being filed, when retaliation or discrimination is suspected during a wage claim or other investigation being conducted by the Labor Commissioner. If the Labor Commissioner finds reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, the Labor Commissioner may seek injunctive relief. The bill would also allow an employee bringing a retaliation claim to seek injunctive relief upon showing that reasonable cause exists to believe the employee has been subject to adverse action for bringing the claim. The bill would provide that the injunctive relief would not prohibit an employer from disciplining or firing an employee for conduct that is unrelated to the retaliation claim. The bill would also authorize the Labor Commissioner to issue citations directing specific relief to persons determined to be responsible for violations and to create certain procedural requirements for such.

Immigration: Worksite Enforcement Actions. AB 450, known as the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” would prohibit employers from allowing immigration enforcement agents to have access to non-public areas of a workplace, absent a judicial warrant, and would prohibit immigration enforcement agents to access, review, or obtain employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception. This bill would also:

  • Require an employer to provide current employees with notices of an immigration agency’s inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records within 72 hours of receiving the federal notice of inspection—using a template created by the Labor Commissioner.
  • Require an employer to provide affected employees (meaning employees who may lack work authorization or whose documents have deficiencies) a copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms, upon reasonable request.
  • Require employers to provide to affected current employees, and to an employee’s authorized representative, a copy of the immigration agency notice that provides for the inspection results and written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the action.
  • Grant exclusive authority to the Labor Commissioner or Attorney General to enforce the provisions of this bill and require that any penalty recovered be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
  • Prescribe penalties for failure to satisfy the bill’s prohibitions and for failure to provide the required notices of $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation, and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each further violation.
  • Prohibit an employer from re-verifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by federal law, and authorize the Labor Commission to recover up to a $10,000 penalty for each violation.

Employee Request: Injury and Illness Prevention Program. AB 978 would require an employer to provide a copy—free of charge—to an employee, or to the employee’s representative, of the company’s injury prevention program within 10 days of a written request. A representative would include a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent, an attorney, a health and safety professional, a nonprofit organization advocate, or an immediate family member. The bill would allow the employer to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the person making the written request. The bill would authorize an employer to assert impossibility of performance as an affirmative defense in any complaint alleging a violation of these new provisions.

Stay Tuned … check back for a full breakdown of this year’s legislative bills coming after the Governor’s October 15th deadline.

Seyfarth Synopsis: On September 11, AB 1209, the Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act, which would require larger employers in California to publish differences in pay between male and female employees and Board members, left the Legislature on route to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk for his approval or veto. A statewide salary history ban may soon be headed to his desk, as well.

In face of last month’s suspended implementation of “Component 2” of the Revised EEO-1 Report, which would have required employers with over 100 employees to submit W-2 pay and FLSA hours worked information, California moves forward with its own pay data transparency initiative.

Dubbed by Cal Chamber as the “public shaming of employers” bill, AB 1209 has undergone significant changes since Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher introduced it on February 17, 2017, as a nonsubstantive “spot bill” relating to wages.

After multiple amendments and the addition of coauthors from both houses, the version of AB 1209 sent to the Governor would require companies with at least 500 employees to compute differences between the wages of male and female exempt employees and board members located in California and file the report with the California Secretary of State (“SOS”). The SOS would in turn, publish this information on a public website.

What Will Employers Have to Do?

If the bill is signed by Gov. Brown, beginning on July 1, 2019, and biennially thereafter, impacted employers will have to collect and compute:

  • The difference between the wages of male and female exempt employees in California using both the mean and median wages in each job classification or title.
  • The difference between the mean and median wages of male board members and female board members located in California.
  • The number of employees used for these determinations.

This information would then be reported to the California SOS by January 1, 2020 (and biennially thereafter) on a form categorized consistent with Labor Code Section 1197.5—the California Fair Pay Act (“FPA”).

What Will the SOS Do with the Data?

The bill would have the SOS publish the reported information on a public website. While the current version of the bill would no longer require companies to publicly publish their own data, placing that duty on the SOS would be no less dangerous for employers.

As Jennifer Barrera of Cal Chamber and Kara Bush of the Computing Technology Industry Association wrote in a recent Sacramento Bee article: “Public display of the data adds insult to injury. Employers would be required to provide statistics on job duties, wages and gender, but without the factors such as experience and seniority that the law says are legitimate reasons for wage gaps. That’s propounding a half-truth—and a public relations windfall for plaintiffs’ attorneys.” Proponents of the bill contend this bill would help to close the gender wage gap. The bill’s author, Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher, touts the bill as giving “the public very precise data about which big companies are paying women the salaries they deserve, and which aren’t.” She also said: “Sunlight is a great way to help expose and address this [gender pay disparity] problem.”

No Per Se Violations of the California Fair Pay Act

The bill provides that “a gender wage differential in the information provided under this [new Labor Code] section [the bill would create] is not, in itself, a violation of Section 1197.5.” Nor does the bill impose any penalty or right of action by its own terms. The bill’s opponents have argued it does not need to, because it effectively forces employers to hand over to potential plaintiffs all information they might need to file a lawsuit, without any context that would explain permissible differentials.

Salary History Ban May Also be Headed to Governor’s Desk

The Governor has until October 15, 2017, to consider and sign or veto this and any other bills.

He may also have before him for consideration AB 168, which, as currently drafted, would prohibit an employer from asking for, or relying upon, an applicant’s salary history, consistent with similar bans in San Francisco, New York City, Philadelphia (stayed pending legal challenge), Delaware, Puerto Rico, Oregon and Massachusetts.

AB 168 passed the Senate yesterday, September 12th, and is headed back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote.

Will the Gov Sign One or Both of These Bills? 

Since signing the Fair Pay Act in 2015, Governor Brown has shied away from approving bills making anything other than incremental changes to that Act (last year adding race and ethnicity to gender and prohibiting prior salary alone from justifying a pay disparity), stating the FPA should be given time to work to see if stricter legislation is needed. But the Trump Administration’s pullback of the revised EEO-1 report may provide an impetus for Governor Brown to treat California’s own gender pay gap initiative more favorably.

Stay tuned for our full legislative updates in the coming weeks. For information on how this bill might affect your company, contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney or any member of Seyfarth’s Pay Equity Group.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Labor Day sales may be over, but some savvy California employers might still find a great deal. That’s because not all land inside California’s borders is actually within the legal jurisdiction of California. Rather, some areas are federal enclaves—territory California has ceded to the federal government and in which federal law largely applies. California employers operating within these enclaves are free of many peculiar California employment laws, and need only follow federal employment law. For this reason, employers who prefer federal employment law but love operating inside California’s borders—and who doesn’t?—may want to consider whether they can operate within a federal enclave.

The legal support for the federal enclave doctrine comes from the United States Constitution. Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation over “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17. But federal enclaves do not arise just because the federal government has bought some land from a state. Creation of a federal enclave requires an actual transfer of sovereignty from the state government to the United States.

A California employer operating within a federal enclave, may, depending on the circumstances, be free of many complex and onerous requirements imposed by California law. The extent to which California law applies within an enclave varies depending on three circumstances:

  • Reserved Jurisdiction. California law will apply to the extent the California government retained jurisdiction at the time of cession.
  • Congressional Authorization. California law will apply where Congress has specifically authorized its application within the enclave.
  • Laws In Effect At Cession. California laws in effect at the time the land became a federal enclave continue to apply within the federal enclave unless abrogated by Congress. Later-enacted California laws have no force within the enclave (though later state laws nevertheless can apply within an enclave if the “same basic scheme” was in effect at the time of cession).

As an example, both Yosemite National Park (in 1920) and  San Francisco’s Presidio (in 1897) became federal enclaves well before California created most of the statutes that have made its employment law so peculiar. Many employers operate within enclaves such as these, and as a result may be shielded from many of the laws that afflict the common run of California employers.

Alas, a federal enclave is not a viable option for most California employers. Common federal enclaves typically are in national parks and on military bases, and most employers cannot simply pick up and relocate their operations to such sites. Those employers fortunate enough to operate within a federal enclave, however, may have a meaningful defense against many California employment law claims. Employers who believe they may be operating within an enclave should confirm their enclave status and review what laws apply within that enclave. This opportunity, unlike a Labor Day sale, does not expire.

If you would like to learn more about federal enclaves and the protections they provide, please contact a Seyfarth Shaw attorney for assistance.

Edited by Chelsea Mesa.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  As if high rent and California’s peculiar laws were not enough to worry about, San Francisco employers must also comply with City-specific ordinances. Trailblazing City requirements often exceed state laws and have sometimes been harbingers of state-level enactments. One might say that San Francisco, with its distinctive laws, is to California what California is to the rest of the country. We highlight the Big Eight SFO peculiarities, below.

Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is an example of San Francisco taking the lead and inspiring changes to state law. On July 1, 2017, San Francisco’s minimum wage officially increased to $14.00 per hour; on July 1, 2018, it will jump to $15.00. The rates apply to all employees who work at least two hours per week within the City or County of SF. The City approved these rate increases years before the California Legislature followed suit in passing the Fair Wage Act of 2016, which mandated an annual state-wide increase until it reaches $15.00 in 2020. Might the City then push to exceed this amount come 2020?

Paid Sick Leave

Paid sick leave is another area where City entitlements differ from those available under state law. San Francisco says that all employees, including part-time and temporary workers, are entitled to paid sick leave when they are ill, require medical care, or need to care for their family members or designated person. While state law currently provides employees with three days (24 hours) of paid sick leave for most of the same reasons, the City offers employees significantly more protected paid time off.

San Francisco employers with fewer than 10 employees must allow workers to accrue up to 40 hours, and those with 10 or more employees must allow accrual up to 72 hours. Not only are employees thus entitled to two to three times what the state mandates, but any unused days also carry over year to year (subject to the above accrual caps). Remember that employers must comply with both state and City laws, as satisfying one does not satisfy the other. Originally enacted in 2007, the City amended its paid sick law as of January 1, 2017, so check out the City’s FAQs for additional updates.

Paid Parental Leave & Family Friendly Workplace

San Francisco has its own take on California’s family-related leave programs—with two separate but related ordinances. You may recall that California’s Paid Family Leave offers six weeks of partial pay/wage replacement (after an eight-day waiting period) to employees who are otherwise entitled or permitted to take time off to bond with a new child or to care for a seriously ill family member. The California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) also mandates that covered employers give 12 weeks of unpaid, protected leave within a year to eligible employees for a child’s birth, adoption, or foster placement, for the employee’s own serious medical condition, or to care for a seriously ill or injured family member. To be eligible for CFRA leave, an employee must have worked for the covered employer for at least a year and have clocked 1250+ hours.

In San Francisco, by contrast, an employee needs only eight hours per week on a regular basis for six months before taking advantage of its Paid Parental Leave benefits. While matching the state’s six weeks of state (EDD) paid time for new child bonding, San Francisco requires that the employer also pay the leave in the form of supplemental compensation that, in conjunction with California’s Paid Family Leave benefits, equals 100% of the employee’s gross weekly wages. Currently, this law applies to employers with 35 or more employees (regardless of location) and employees working 40% or more of their hours in San Francisco. Beginning January 1, 2018, this law will expand to include all employers with 20 or more employees.

San Francisco has a separate ordinance that attempts to make what is often a difficult time easier for individuals who have family caregiving obligations. Employees who have worked eight hours per week for six months can request a flexible or predictable schedule to assist with these responsibilities. Specifically, the law applies to employers with 20 or more workers (regardless of location) and covers caring for children under 18, seriously ill family members, and parents of the employee who are over 65. San Francisco wants the state to know that family friendliness begins here!

Health Care Security

San Francisco’s mandatory health care law ensures that employees are cared for, too. Employers must make health care expenditure payments each quarter for every employee who has been working more than 90 days. Employers with fewer than 20 employees are exempt altogether, but employers with 20-99 employees must spend $1.76 per hour payable per each employee, while those with 100+ must spend $2.64 per hour. The City allows these payments to be made to the employee directly, to the City, or as a contribution to a reimbursement program. Under this ordinance, the City may impose several different penalties for non-compliance, so getting caught not paying these expenditures would certainly be worse than catching a cold!

Fair Chance (SF’s Version of “Ban-the-Box”)

The City does not believe that having been behind bars should necessarily bar the employment of qualified individuals. The Fair Chance ordinance aims to make work more accessible and put applicants with prior arrests or convictions on an even playing field. All employers with more than 20 employees must state in job solicitations that qualified applicants with arrest or conviction records will be considered. Employers also must not ask about such records until after a live interview or a conditional offer, at which time only arrests or convictions directly related to the ability to perform a given job may be considered in the hiring decision. An employer that chooses not to employ an applicant with a record must first allow the individual a chance to respond with evidence of inaccurate information, rehabilitation, or other mitigating factors.

California currently prohibits employers from asking about certain criminal records, including arrests that did not result in criminal convictions and convictions that have been dismissed or expunged. As of July 1, 2017 (per new FEHC regulations that we discussed here that are similar to San Francisco’s law), California employers may not consider criminal records in hiring decisions that would adversely affect individuals belonging to a protected class. If there is a disparate impact, then employers must show that their background check policy is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Before making a decision based on criminal records, employers must conduct an individualized assessment that allows anyone screened out by the policy to respond with proof that the background check is inaccurate or with reasons why adverse action should not be taken.

Formula Retail Employee Rights

Whether it be disrupted budgeting, inconvenience, or some other reason, employees can get upset when their work schedule suddenly changes; San Francisco has a law for that. Chain stores with 40+ locations worldwide and 20 or more people working in San Francisco must provide notice of the work schedule two weeks in advance. In addition, employers must provide “predictability pay” whenever an employee’s schedule changes with less than a week’s notice, and if an on-call employee is required to be available but is not called into work during the shift, the employer must still pay them for that time.

These same employers must offer (in writing) any available extra hours to current qualified part-time employees before they can hire someone new to cover the workload. If an establishment is sold, the successor employer must retain, for 90 days, any eligible employee who worked longer than six months before the sale. San Jose voters passed a comparable ordinance, and new legislation was recently introduced in the California legislature with aims to enact a similar law. Beware of these special laws that apply “within the City and County” soon getting a California-sized expansion!

Lactation Accommodation

In June 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved specific legislation requiring employers to provide a private space for new mothers to pump their milk. The ordinance goes into effect January 1, 2018, and calls for a clean space that contains a chair, access to electricity, and surface space for a breast pump. In addition, the employee’s workspace must be in close proximity to a sink with running water as well as a refrigerator. Subject to certain exceptions, if such a space does not exist, then one must be constructed. Employers will be required to distribute the company’s lactation accommodation policy to all employees at the time of hiring.

While state and federal law mandate that employers make reasonable efforts to provide new mothers with lactation breaks throughout the workday, San Francisco’s more expansive legislation may very well be a predictor of what’s next to come on the state level.

We will keep you informed of updates and changes to these ordinances as violations can come with hefty penalties or result in administrative investigations and civil suits. It should be noted that some exceptions and exemptions apply, and those details and additional requirements can be found on the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement website. To ensure your company is compliant, or if you have questions about anything mentioned here, Seyfarth’s Labor and Employment attorneys are available to assist you.

Edited by Michael A. Wahlander.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Although there’s no right or wrong time to do a handbook update, we recommend them annually. Might as well take the opportunity when operations are typically slower, summertime, to give your handbook a shine. We’ve highlighted a few areas upon which to focus when you do so.

Ah, the joys of summer. Maybe it’s the heat, but everything seems a little harder in the summer. The sun is melting everything in sight, and sometimes it seems everyone is on vacation, leaving a little opportunity for the rest of us to have some *gasp* free time? This is the time of year, after all, when everything just seems to slooooooooooooooow dooooooooooooooooooown.

But because we’re all looking for an excuse to spend a little more time in nice air conditioned comfort, and we need to cure that summer boredom, when was the last time you updated your handbook?

Here are a few areas you may want to check while you enjoy that recycled air:

Did you update when the FEHA Regulations were amended last year?

As we discussed here, the FEHA Regulations now include many new requirements for employer policies on harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. If you haven’t had an opportunity to do so, we recommend you dust off those old policies and go through the amended regulations with a fine-toothed comb to see where improvements can be made.

How about breaks?

As we reported here, the end of 2016 saw some developments in the world of rest breaks. Some traditional policies may exert a little too much control over how employees take breaks. We’d definitely use that occasional summer thunderstorm as an excuse to spend time carefully perusing that policy.

What am I wearing?

If your dress code includes gender-specific information, now is a good time to review and make some potential modifications in light of the FEHC regulations on transgender rights, described here.

Sick of sick time yet?

Not that anyone gets sick in the summer, but if your company operates in multiple jurisdictions, it’s a great time to make sure no new sick law affects your employees. California now has six jurisdictions (San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville, Santa Monica, San Diego, and Los Angeles, summarized here) with sick leave laws for private employers, with Berkeley right around the corner. Take this time to compare these ordinances and the state law with your current policy to make sure you’re in great shape for the upcoming flu season.

It’s also a great opportunity to spruce up your attendance policies to make sure you’re not punishing your employees from properly taking absences covered by these or other leave laws.

Who’s on leave?

A few years back, the California Legislature expanded those activities covered by the Family School Partnership Act, described here. So if you haven’t taken a look at this policy in a while, might as well get that out of the way before school starts up this fall.

For your San Francisco folks, if you haven’t had an opportunity to put together a policy/protocol covering the responsibilities of the San Francisco Paid Parental Leave Ordinance, described here, now is as good a time as any.

Also, as we discussed here, we know the law requiring the notice and posting on Domestic Violence issues became effective on July 1. Perhaps now would be a good time to consider implementing a policy on this if you don’t already have one in place.

Workplace Solution?

Although not every change in the law will make you toss out that old handbook, we do think an annual review, whether over a relaxing summer break or as you shiver indoors this winter, is a great opportunity to ensure you’re complying with the ever-evolving California and local laws. It can also serve as a reminder to compare your handbook with any benefit documents referred to inside.

Go ahead and spend a few minutes with a nice icy glass of lemonade and curl up with your favorite summer read: the company handbook! And contact your favorite Seyfarth counselor to get yours in ship shape before the kiddos come home from camp, and everything gets crazy for back to school.