California Employment Law Report

California Employment Law Report

The latest litigation trends, court decisions, & issues on California Employment Law

Friday’s Five: When employers can be liable for supervisor’s conduct

Employers are strictly liable for the actions of its supervisors, managers or agents under the doctrine street cafeof respondeat superior.  Here are five key concepts employers must understand about the liability that could be created by managerial employees.

1. Respondeat superior holds employers automatically liable for actions by managers

The respondeat superior doctrine provides that “an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.”  As explained by the California Supreme Court in Patterson v. Dominio’s Pizza, there are “three policy justifications for the respondeat superior doctrine…prevention, compensation and risk allocation.”

2. Employers liability for non-supervisory employees

Under California’s FEHA, the employer is strictly liable for harassing action of its supervisors.  However, an employer is only liable for harassment by a coworker if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate corrective action.

3. Managers/supervisors under the respondeat superior doctrine

Under California’s FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all acts of a supervisor.  A supervisor is generally defined as someone who has the discretion and authority to hire, direct, transfer, promote, assign, reward, discipline, direct, or discharge other employees or to recommend these actions.  See Government Code section 12926(t).

4. Which entities may be considered the employer under the respondeat superior doctrine

 In terms of defining who is the employers, courts in FEHA cases have looked to “the control exercised by the employer over the employee’s performance of employment duties….This standard requires a ‘comprehensive and immediate level of `day-to-day’ authority’ over matters such as hiring, firing, direction, supervision, and discipline of the employee.”  FEHA also defines employer to mean “any person action as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly….”  This means that people not directly employed by the company can still create agency liability for the employer.

5. Issue: Can a franchisor be held liable for a franchisee’s supervisor’s conduct?

How far does the doctrine of respondeat superior extend when there are levels of agency, such as in a franchisor-franchisee relationship?  This was the issue addressed by the California Supreme Court in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza.  The Supreme Court held that given the facts in that case, Domino’s Pizza was not liable for the franchisee’s manager’s acts.  The Supreme Court explained:

A major incentive is the franchisee’s right to hire the people who work for him, and to oversee their performance each day. A franchisor enters this arena, and becomes potentially liable for actions of the franchisee’s employees, only if it has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee’s employees.  Any other guiding principle would disrupt the franchise relationship.

The Supreme Court did not hold the franchisor liable in the case because it did not “control the workforce, and could not have prevented the misconduct and corrected its effects.”  However, the Court issued a warning to franchisors:

A franchisor will be liable if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations that we have described, and cannot escape liability in such a case merely because it failed or declined to establish a policy with regard to that particular conduct.

Understanding joint employer liability

Joint employer liability can arise in many different contexts, such as when using staffing agencies, management companies, or in even in the franchise context.  Companies must understand the factors a court could apply in determining if a potential joint employer relationship exists between the two entities to avoid being potentially liable for employment lawsuits filed because of the actions of another employer.

The California Supreme Court set out the factors that can create a joint employer relationship in Martinez v. Combs.  Under this test, to “employ” means (1) “to exercise control over… wages, hours or working conditions,” (2) “to suffer or permit to work,” or (3) “to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.”  The court in Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp. explained that “[a]ny of the three is sufficient to create an employment relationship.”  In addition to the factors that California courts apply, employers must understand the federal framework that could also apply to employees by the Department of Labor in enforcing the FLSA and other federal laws.  This Friday’s Five discusses five issues that could create joint employer liability under California and Federal law.

1. An entity can be held a joint employer if it exercises control over wages, hours, or working conditions.

Under California law, an entity can be held liable under the joint employer theory if it “directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control” over their wages, hours, or working conditions.  While this standard is potentially broad in scope, courts have limited its reach in holding that entities that may be able to influence treatment of employees but that do not have any actual “authority to directly control their wages, hours or conditions” are not joint employers.  Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp.  The court in Ochoa explained that the California Court of Appeal in Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. held that “control over wages means that a person or entity has the power or authority to negotiate and set an employee’s rate of pay, and that an entity that does not control the hiring, firing, and day-to-day supervision of workers is not an employer.”

2. An entity can be liable for “suffering or permitting” the work.

The California Supreme Court held in Martinez v. Combs that the “basis of liability is the defendant’s knowledge of and failure to prevent the work from occurring.”  The analysis is whether the entity had power to cause the employee to work or the power to prevent the employee from working.

3. Joint employer liability exists if the employee is “engaged.”

The Court in Martinez held that “to engage” means to create a common law employment relationship.  In terms of the franchisor and franchisee context, the California Supreme Court explained the test is whether the alleged employer “has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee’s employees.”  Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza.

4. “Ostensible” agency.

Ostensible agency holds a principal liable for acts of the “ostensible agent.”  This liability is created when: (1) the person dealing with the agent must do so with belief in the agent’s authority and this belief must be a reasonable one; (2) such belief must be generated by some act or neglect of the principal sought to be charged; and (3) the third person in relying on the agent’s apparent authority must not be guilty of negligence.  Put another way, “A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.”  Cal. Civil Code section 2334.

5. Department of Labor’s Administrative Interpretation issued in 2016.

In January 2016, the DOL issued an Administrative Interpretation regarding how the agency views joint employment liability.  The DOL explains that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), “an employee can have two or more employers for the work that he or she is performing. When two or more employers jointly employ an employee, the employee’s hours worked for all of the joint employers during the workweek are aggregated and considered as one employment, including for purposes of calculating whether overtime pay is due. Additionally, when joint employment exists, all of the joint employers are jointly and severally liable for compliance with the FLSA and MSPA.”  While not necessarily binding on courts, the DOL’s interpretation is instructive of how broadly it views the joint employer test.

Five key employment issues facing California employers in 2017

I’m starting 2017 off with videos taken from my recent webinar discussing local minimum wage issues, California’s new employment laws, Los Angeles’ ban the box ordinance, the new Form I-9 required in 2017, and potential impacts President-elect Trump may have on employment laws.  Happy New Year!

California state and local minimum wage and paid sick leave laws in 2017

California’s new wage discrimination laws in 2017

Los Angeles bans employers from asking about criminal background information

New Form I-9 required in 2017

President-elect Trump’s impact on California’s employment landscape

California Supreme Court closes out 2016 with monumental ruling on employer’s obligations to provide rest periods

Woman resting

In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on employer’s obligations to permit employees to take “off-duty” rest periods.  The Court’s ruling ends 2016 with a major ruling on issues surrounding rest periods under California law.

The plaintiffs worked as security guards for defendant ABM.  The employer required to the guards to keep their pagers and radio phones on at all times, even during rest periods, and to potentially respond to calls when needed.   The guards’ duties included when a building tenant wished to be escorted to the parking lot, a building manager had to be notified of a mechanical problem, or the occurrence of emergency situations.

The trial court “reasoned that a rest period subject to such control was indistinguishable from the rest of a workday; in other words, an on-duty or on-call break is no break at all,” and granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  The trial court awarded approximately $90 million in statutory damages, interest, and penalties.    ABM appealed the trial court’s ruling, and was successful in having the trial court overturned, but the California Supreme Court granted review of the case.

The company argued that it provided the required rest breaks under California law because it only required that the guards keep their radios and pagers on in case they were needed to respond to a call.  For the last Friday’s Five article of 2016, here are five key lessons for California employers from the Supreme Court’s decision:

1. Generally, what are employer’s obligations to provide rest breaks under California law?

Employer’s obligations to provide rest breaks is found in Labor Code section 226.7, enacted in 2000.  As enacted, subdivision (a) provided:  “No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.”  The Wage Orders generally require that employers must provide a 10-minute rest period per every four hours worked and the break should, whenever practicable, fall in the middle of the work period. (See Wage Order 4, subd. 12(A).  The rest period must also be paid, and the law does not require that employers record when the employee takes the rest period (unlike an employer’s obligation to record when 30-minute meal breaks are taken).

2. Does California law require employers to authorize off-duty rest periods? 

Yes.  The Supreme Court held that employers must provide employees with a paid rest break in which the employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control.  The Court examined the wage order at issue in the case, Wage Order 4, which provides, “Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods…. Authorized rest period time shall be counted, as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.”

The Court ruled that:

The most reasonable inference we can draw from the wage order and its context is instead that we should give the term its most common understanding – a reading consistent with requiring that employers authorize off-duty rest periods…. So, ordinarily, a reasonable reader would understand ‘rest period’ to mean an interval of time free from labor, work, or any other employment-related duties.

We accordingly conclude that the construction of Wage Order 4, subdivision 12(A) that best effectuates the order’s purpose and remains true to its provisions is one that obligates employers to permit –– and authorizes employees to take –– off-duty rest periods.  That is, during rest periods employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time.

3. Can employers satisfy the obligation to relieve employees from duties and control during rest periods if the employer requires the employee to remain on call? 

No.  The Court ruled that “one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods.”  The Court made clear that the employee must be “free from labor, work, or any other employment-related duties.  And employees must not only be relieved of work duties, but also freed from employer control over how they spend their time.”

4. If employees are required to carry a pager or phone during a rest break and must monitor the device during the rest break, is the employee provided a compliant rest break? 

No.  If an employee “must fulfill certain duties [such as] carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests,” the employee does not have the freedom to use the rest period for their own purpose.  The court used examples that employees should be permitted to take “a brief walk – five minutes out, five minutes back,” take care of personal matters like “pumping breast milk… or completing a phone call to arrange child care.”

5. Is there some flexibility for employers to reschedule rest breaks when needed?

Yes.  The Court provided, “[n]othing in our holding circumscribes an employer’s ability to reasonably reschedule a rest period when the need arises.”  However, the Court failed to provide any other clarification of what is reasonable in rescheduling a rest period.  The Court did explain, however, that employers have “several options” when employers find it burdensome to relieve their employees of all duties during rest periods.  As examples of these options, the Court stated that employers can provide employees with another rest period to replace the one that was interrupted, or pay the premium pay of one hour at the employee’s regular rate of pay for missing the rest period.

Looking for more information about California employers obligations to provide rest and meal periods?  See my prior post on five reminders about rest breaks here, and the timing of meal and rest breaks under California law here.

Friday’s Five: Holiday edition

Quick video on the five things California employers need to pay attention to in 2017.

(Sorry for the wind noise in the video.)

I briefly discuss the following five issues:

1) Augustus v. ABM Security Services: A new California Supreme Court decision about whether rest breaks during which security guards were required to monitor a pager for a call actually counts as a rest break under California law.  Short answer: No.  The Court held that the guards had to be completely relieved of all duties during the rest break.  I’ll write more about this decision in the coming weeks.

2) Local ordinances banning criminal history inquiries, such as Los Angeles’ new prohibitions staring in 2017.

3) Local paid sick leave requirements (such as San Diego and Los Angeles).

4) Local minimum wage ordinances.

5) Arbitration agreements and class action waivers.

Happy holidays!

Friday’s Five: Los Angeles City employers cannot seek criminal background information beginning in 2017

Downtown LA

Mayor Garcetti signed into law the “Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring” ordinance on December 7, 2016.  The law takes effect January 22, 2017.  The Mayor’s holiday gift to employers leaves only a couple of weeks to them to change applications and hiring processes to comply with the new ordinance.  This Friday’s Five lists five aspects of the ordinance employers operating in the City need to understand:

1. New law applies to employers with 10 or more employees.

The new law applies to any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, labor organization, group of persons, association, or other organization however organized, that is located or doing business in the City of Los Angeles and employs ten or more employees.  The owners, management, and supervisory employees are counted when determining if the employer has ten employees.

Employers cannot inquirer into criminal backgrounds of applicants until after a conditional offer of employment is made.

2. The ordinance limits employers’ ability to gather information about applicants’ criminal history.

Employers cannot conduct any “direct or indirect” activity to gather criminal history from or about any applicant using any form of communication, including on application forms, interviews or Criminal History Reports.  This includes searching the internet for information pertaining to the applicant’s criminal history.

3. Employers must revise applications to remove any questions seeking information about criminal history.

The ordinance provides: “An Employer shall not include on any application for Employment any question that seeks the disclosure of an Applicant’s Criminal History.”

4. Employers must comply with stringent notice and written obligations if employment is not offered to applicant based on their criminal history.

Employers can require disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history only after a conditional offer of employment has been made.  The only condition on the offer of employment can be the review of the applicant’s criminal background.  There cannot be any other conditions on the offer.

If the conditional offer is made, but employment is denied, employer must perform “written assessment that effectively links the specific aspects of the Applicant’s Criminal History with risks inherent in the duties” of the job.  In conducting the assessment, employers must consider the factors set forth by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other factors set out by the City.

Prior to taking any adverse employment action against the applicant, employers are required to provide a “Fair Chance Process,” which includes a written notification of the proposed adverse action, a copy of the written assessment performed by the employer, and any other information or documents supporting the employer’s action.  The employer then must wait at least 5 business days for employee to provide additional information.  If the applicant provides additional information, the employer then must perform a written reassessment of the adverse action.  If the employer continues with the adverse action, it must provide the applicant with the written reassessment.

The process has many requirements employers must be careful to follow, and it is recommended that employers relying upon an applicant’s criminal background to deny employment should seek legal counsel to ensure compliance with the ordinance.

5. Employers’ other requirements to comply with the law

Some other obligations the ordinance creates for employers:

  • Employers “[s]hall state in all solicitations or advertisements… that the Employer will consider for employment qualified Applicants with Criminal Histories in a manner consistent with the requirements of this article.”
  • Post a notice informing applicants of the law at each workplace, job site or other location in the City of Los Angeles under the employer’s control and visited by the applicants.
  • Employers must retain applications and related information for three years.

Happy Friday!

Five things to know about reporting time pay under California law

CalifoTime Clock in Handrnia employers cannot forget about detailed employment provisions such as reporting time pay.  This Friday’s Five provide a list of five things California employers should understand about reporting time pay:

1.  What is reporting time pay?

California law requires an employer to pay “reporting time pay” under the applicable Wage Order.  This requires that when an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which cannot not be less than the minimum wage.

In addition, if an employee is required to report to work a second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two hours of work on the second reporting, he or she must be paid for two hours at his or her regular rate of pay.

California’s Labor Commissioner provides the following example:

For example, if an employee is scheduled to report to work for an eight-hour shift and only works for one hour, the employer is nonetheless obligated to pay the employee four hours of pay at his or her regular rate of pay (one for the hour worked, and three as reporting time pay). Only the one-hour actually worked, however, counts as actual hours worked.

Employers must remember, when an employee is scheduled to work, the minimum two-hour pay requirement applies only if the employee is furnished work for less than half the scheduled time.

2.  Time paid as reporting time pay does not trigger overtime pay.

Reporting time pay for hours in excess of the actual hours worked is not counted as hours worked for purposes of determining overtime.

3.  Reporting time pay and meetings.

There has been significant litigation over reporting time pay that is owed when employees are called in for meetings.  If an employee is called in on a day in which he is not scheduled, the employee is entitled to at least two hours of pay, and potentially up to four hours if the employee normally works 8 hours or more per day. See Price v. Starbucks.

However, if the employer schedules the employee to come into work for two hours or less, and the employee works at least one half of the scheduled shift, the employer is only required to pay for the actual time worked and no reporting time is owed.  See my prior post on Aleman v. AirTouch for a more detailed discussion.

4.  Exceptions to the reporting time requirements.

The Wage Orders provide that employers are not required to pay overtime pay during the following circumstances:

  1. When operations cannot begin or continue due to threats to employees or property, or when civil authorities recommend that work not begin or continue; or
  2. When public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or there is a failure in the public utilities, or sewer system; or
  3. When the interruption of work is caused by an Act of God or other cause not within the employer’s control, for example, an earthquake.

5.  What if the employee voluntarily leaves early?

Employers are not required to pay reporting time pay if the employee voluntarily leaves work early.  For example, if the employee becomes sick or must attend to personal issues outside of work and leaves early, then the employer is not obligated to pay reporting time pay.

Five negotiation tactics used in mediations that litigants must understand

Suit

Having just attended the Advanced Mediation Conference hosted by the State Bar of California Labor and Employment Law Section, it occurred to me how intimidating a mediation can be for even sophisticated business operators.  I wanted to share five concepts brought up at the conference that I would like all of my clients to understand about the mediation process:

1.     The mediator’s role – making you uncomfortable (but in a good way).

As I wrote in a prior post, a mediator’s only role is to get the case settled.  He or she is not there to be your friend, not to tell you what they feel the case is worth, or to protect your opponent’s position.  Their role is to get a settlement.  Put yourself in the mediator’s shoes, and you have two warring parties who hate each other and believe they will win if their case goes to trial.  How, as a mediator, do you get the parties to move off their respective beliefs?  You must attack both sides’ theory of the case by pointing out the weaknesses of each sides’ positions.  So don’t take the attacks personally, or think that the mediator is only attacking your position.  If the mediator is persuasive about how weak your case is, she is equally persuasive to other side.  Follow the Navy SEALs’ saying “Get comfortable being uncomfortable.”  Understand also, that the attacks are not personal, it is not about you as a person, but instead about the facts of the case and weaknesses of the case.  Finally, remember that the more uncomfortable you are, the opposing party in the other room is likewise feeling the same way.

2.     Understand when being cooperative will help you get a better deal.

A party involved in a mediation must understand that there are two parts to a mediation: (1) the process and (2) the content.  The process is how you interact with the other party being negotiating against.  Are you cordial?  Do you make small talk?  The content is the subject being negotiated, such as the dollar amounts.  A party that is cooperative about the process and competitive about the content will do better overall in a mediation than compared to a party that is competitive on both the process and content.  Think about how you interact with someone that is simply being a jerk to you on ever little issue, even issues that do not impact the subject being negotiated.  When dealing with the hyper-competitive negotiator, your guard goes up and the negotiation turns more personal.  This is a bad combination for attempting to reach a reasonable settlement.

3.     If you make a last, best and final offer, make it your last best and final offer.

Parties’ statements made during a mediation must have credibility.  If you make a “last, best and final offer” during a mediation, and the other side rejects the offer, but you continue to negotiate, you have lost credibility with the other party and the mediator.  As a result, even if you continue to negotiate and truly reach your last, best and final offer, the other side (and the mediator) will not believe that is your final number and will continue to push you beyond this number.  There are occasions to make a last, best and final offer, but if you qualify your offer as such, be ready to walk out of the mediation if the offer is rejected.

4.     Bracketing.

Ralph Williams, a mediator with ADR Services, explains bracketing as follows:

Negotiation “bracketing” is the process of making a conditional offer linked to an expected response from the other side.  For example, plaintiff states, “I will demand $500,000 if the defendant offers $200,000.”  Defendant responds by accepting the bracket or proposing a different bracket (Defendant will offer $100,000 if plaintiff demands $400,000) or offering an absolute number.  Plaintiff then replies with one of the same three options.  Using negotiation “bracketing,” the parties send clear signals about their expectations, save time and avoid the stress of the negotiating dance that starts with a $1 million demand and a $10,000 offer.

In addition, brackets are conditional offers.  Therefore, unless the other side accepts the proposed bracket, the party making the offer is not committed to those numbers.  This allows parties to potentially make larger moves without the fear of having those moves held against them later in the mediation or in the case.

The use of bracketing during negotiations can add another layer of complexity to the settlement negotiations.  However, with advice from counsel about how to negotiate using brackets, they are an effective tool in resolving cases.  Understanding the concept of bracketing before a mediation – even at a very basic level – will help save time during a mediation and allow you keep your focus on the negotiation.

5.     Enter the mediation prepared with a bottom walk-away number, but also a number that represents a goal.

It is important to know what your last best and final number is prior to going into the mediation.  Steve Pearl, a mediator with ADR Services (who presented at the conference today), explains:

Experienced negotiators will set not only the walkaway numbers beyond which they will not move, but also goals that are better than those walkaway numbers. Parties who set “shoot for” numbers as their reference points typically do better than those who only formulate walkaway numbers.

However, just like almost every negotiation “rule” there are drawbacks in setting a walk-away numbers.  Pearl explains that sometimes parties may have to shift their reference points to resolve the case.  So, parties should have clear numbers set going into the mediation, but must also have a mechanism to reevaluate these goals if the case will not settle within these predetermined numbers.

Happy Friday.

Five of the most asked questions by California employers

I hope everyone is having a great Thanksgiving weekend.  This Friday’s Five is about five common questions I’m receiving from California employers at the close of 2016.

1. Does the legalization of recreational use of marijuana in California with the passage of proposition 64 change employer’s rights to prohibit it in the workplace?

No.  Proposition 64 expressly provides that employers may prohibit marijuana in the workplace, and will not be required to accommodate an employee’s use of marijuana.  This is also consistent with the California Supreme Court’s holding in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.  In that case the court examined the conflict between California’s Compassionate Use Act, (which gives a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes on a physician’s recommendation a defense to certain state criminal charges and permission to possess the drug) and Federal law (which prohibits the drug’s possession, even by medical users).  The court held that the Compassionate Use Act did not intend to address the rights and obligation of employers and employees, and further noted that the possession and use of marijuana could not be a protected activity because it is still illegal under federal law.

2. Does Trump’s win change any laws facing employers in 2017?

While it is hard to predict the effect President-elect Trump will have on California employers, I previously wrote about potential impacts in immigration and E-verify issues, paid family leave, and the expansion of even more additional local laws.

3. When is the new Form I-9 required to be used by employers?

Employers must begin using the new Form I-9 by January 22, 2017.  It is important to note that employees already hired with the older version of the Form I-9 do not have to complete the new version.  More information about the revised Form I-9 can be read here.

4. What new laws in California do employers need to understand for 2017?

New laws that will impact many California employers include:

  • Prohibition on asking or taking into consideration juvenile convictions when hiring
  • Expansion of wage discrimination laws based on gender, race or ethnicity.
  • Employers with 25 or more employees are required to provide written notice to employees about rights provided to domestic violence victims under California law.
  • Employers are prohibited from requiring employees who primarily reside and work in California to agree to adjudicate claims outside of California or apply another state’s laws in arbitration agreements.

My prior post contains more information about the laws facing California employers in 2017.

5. When are you conducting your next webinar?

Join me on December 13, at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time for a webinar: “Employment law update: Essential issues facing California employers in 2017.” (I had to throw this self-promoting question in the line-up.)  You can register for the webinar here.

U.S. Federal Court judge puts DOL overtime rules on hold

Employers across the nation have been preparing to increase salary levels for managers to meet the higher salary level requirements implemented by the Department of Labor earlier this year under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The DOL rules were set to take effect on December 1, 2016, and require that employers must pay employees that qualify to be exempt executive, administrative or professionals (referred to as the “EAP” exemption) a minimum salary level of at least $921 per week or $47,892 annually.  21 states filed a lawsuit to prevent the DOL’s rule to take effect, arguing that in raising the minimum salary level, the DOL exceeded its delegated authority from Congress.  While not issuing a final ruling, the court determined that the plaintiff states have shown a likelihood of success on the merits justifying the preliminary injunction.  The merits of the case and a final determination will be made at a later date.

Therefore, the court issued an injunction preventing the DOL’s overtime rules from taking effect on December 1, 2016.  An issue addressed by the court was whether the injunction applied only to the 21 states involved in this case, or to all states.  The court’s opinion is unambiguous that the scope of the injunction applies to all states and all employers:

A nationwide injunction is proper in this case.  The Final Rule is applicable to all states.  Consequently, the scope of the alleged irreparable injury extends nationwide.  A nationwide injunction protects both employees and employers from being subject to different EAP exemptions based on location.

Now employers that started the process of raising salary levels for managers in order to comply with the DOL’s overtime rules must make a decision to continue with the raises or hold back on any implementation until there is further guidance from the courts.  It is also likely that President-elect Trump’s administration will not look favorably on the DOL’s overtime rules.  This adds further uncertainty about whether the increase in the salary level will ever go into effect once President-elect Trump takes office.

The opinion in State of Nevada, et al v. United States Department of Labor, can be read here.

Employers also need to remember that the minimum salary requirement is only one part of the exemption test, and California employers need to ensure that they are still complying with California’s requirements.

.