California’s state legislature is nearing the end of its term, and employers are beginning to glimpse some of the laws that could apply in 2018.  There are multiple proposed bills that prohibits employers’ ability to rely upon or seek information about applicant’s previous wages to set the employee’s pay.  This Friday’s Five reviews the current law – California’s Fair Pay Act, the proposed bills on disclosure of wages, and San Francisco’s local ordinance that recently passed.

1. Current law – California’s Fair Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5)

Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work for work performance that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility that are performed under similar working conditions.  Effective as of January 1, 2017, AB 1676 amended California’s Fair Pay Act, found in Labor Code section 1197.5, prohibiting employers from relying on an employee’s prior salary, by itself, to justify any disparity in compensation.  It is important to note the bill was modified to take out language that would have prohibited employers from obtaining an applicant’s prior salary.

2. Proposed State Bill – AB 1209 – Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act

This bill has been sent to the Governor’s desk during the week of September 11, 2017 to be signed into law or vetoed.  The bill, if signed by the Governor, would require employers with at least 500 employees to calculate the difference between the wages of male and female exempt employees in California by each job classification or title.  The employer would also have to do the same for all board members who are located in California.  The employer would need to report the difference in pay, which would be published on the Internet by the Secretary of State.  Governor Brown has until October 15, 2017 to sign or veto the bill.

3. Proposed State Bill – AB 168 – Salary Information

This bill prohibits employers from replying upon or seeking salary history from applicants.  In addition, employers would be required to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant.

4. San Francisco local ordinance: Parity in Pay Ordinance

San Francisco passed a local law that prohibits employers from asking job applicants to disclose their salary history.  It also prohibits employers from considering an applicant’s pay history as a factor in determining the level of pay to offer.  The law is effective July 1, 2018, so San Francisco employers have some time to review hiring practices to comply.

5. Proposed State Bill – AB 46 – Wage Discrimination

This bill amends the California Fair Pay Act to make clear that the law applies to both public and private employers.

With the end of summer quickly approaching, this Friday’s Five (and next week’s post as well) covers broad topics employers should review periodically.  Today’s post covers five questions a company operating in California should be asking on a routine basis:

1. Has the company reviewed and updated the employee handbook and related policies?

As discussed in last weeks Friday’s Five about the new court decision on vacation pay in Minnick v. Automotive Creations, an employer’s policies are critical in defending claims.  Vague or out dated policies can create huge amounts of liability for employers. California’s requirements change throughout the year, and it is important that employers have a good relationship with employment counsel so that they are routinely communicating and reviewing the need to update policies based on new case law and legislation.

2. Does your company train supervisors and employees on its handbook and other policies, and does the company standby what it tells employees in these policies?

Legally drafted policies only get your company half of the way there.  Companies need to train managers and supervisors about what the policies mean and how they need to be implemented day-to-day.  Furthermore, the company needs to follow-through with what it tells supervisors, managers, and employees.  For examples, if the company maintains an open door policy, but none of the employees are utilizing the open door policy there could be a problem.  One solution is for the company to start pro-actively having open door sessions with employees to discuss their experience at the company (my post next week will discuss what should be asked during these open door sessions).

3. Has the company conducted a review of a local county and city laws that apply?

State, county and city laws regulating minimum wage and paid sick leave are numerous and California employers need to ensure they have closely reviewed they are complying with these requirements.  As Carl’s Jr. is finding out, noncompliance can have steep penalties.

4. When was the last time the company conducted an internal wage and hour audit internally? When was the last time an external lawyer or other professional reviewed wage and hour practices?

Many companies establish policies or simply continuing using policies from the past that have never been reviewed internally or externally by a lawyer or other professional.  I’ve published an HR audit list that covers a few of the essential areas that must be reviewed to lower a company’s legal exposure in California.

5. Is there an open line of communication with the employer’s payroll company and have specific wage and hour compliance issues been discussed?

The information that must be listed on employee’s pay stub is detailed, but easy to comply with.  A model pay stub published by the State Division of Labor Standards Enforcement can be found here (but note this only lists the state requirements – any other local county or city requirement will also apply).  The model pay stubs does not list paid sick leave, which employers must also remember to list on the employee’s pay stub or other writing provided to employees when they are paid.

Many payroll companies do not review the accuracy of the information listed on the pay stubs they generate, and this burden falls on the employer.  In addition to the California Labor Code requirements of the information that must be listed on pay stubs, the local requirements for reporting the amount of paid sick time available to employees must also be provided.  Employers need to proactively review and discuss these requirements with their payroll companies.

Happy Friday!  This Friday’s Five covers five areas that employers can start with in conducting an employment practices Checklistsaudit.  Coming up on the mid-point of the year, it is a good time to conduct an employment law practices audit to ensure that policies are compliant, managers are properly trained, and the company is maintaining the required records for the necessary length of time.  Here are five areas to start with in conducting an audit and a few recommended questions for each topic:

1. Hiring Practices

  • Are applications seeking appropriate information?
    • For example: Be careful about local ban the box regulations.
  • Are new hires provided with required policies and notices?
  • Are new hires provided and acknowledge recommended policies?
    • For example: meal period waivers for shifts less than six hours
  • Are hiring managers trained about the correct questions to ask during the interview?
  • Does the company provide new hires (and existing employees) with arbitration agreements with class action waivers?

 2. Records

  • Are employee files maintained confidentially and for at least four years?
  • Are employee time records maintained for at least four years?
  • Are employee schedules maintained for at least four years?
  • Do the managers have set forms for the following:
    • Employee discipline and write-ups
    • Documenting employee tardiness
  • How is the employee documentation provided to Human Resources or the appropriate manager?
  • Who is involved in reviewing disability accommodation requests?
  • How are employee absences documented?

3. Wage and Hour Issues

  • Does the company have its workweeks and paydays established?
  • Are paydays within the applicable time limits after the pay period as required under the law?
  • Are employees provided with compliant itemized wage statements?
  • Are employees provided a writing setting out their accrued paid sick leave each pay period?
  • Are employees properly classified as exempt or nonexempt?
    • For exempt employees, review their duties and salary to ensure they meet the legal requirements to be an exempt employee.
  • Any workers classified as independent contractors, and if so, could they be considered employees?
  • Are nonexempt employees properly compensated for all overtime worked?
  • Is off-the-clock work prohibited?
    • Policy in place?
    • Are managers trained about how to recognize it and what disciplinary actions to take if find employees working off-the-clock?
  • Does the company’s time keeping system round employee’s time?
    • If so, is the rounding policy compliant with the law?
  • Are meal and rest period polices set out in handbook and employees routinely reminded of policies?
    • Does the company pay “premium pay” for missed meal and rest breaks? If so, how is this documented on the employee pay stub?
    • Do employees record meal breaks?
    • Are managers trained on how to administer breaks and what actions to take if employees miss meal or rest breaks?
  • Is vacation properly documented and tracked?
  • Are all deductions from the employee’s pay check legally permitted? (use caution, very few deductions are permitted under CA law)
  • Are employees reimbursed for all business expenses, such as uniforms, work equipment and miles driven for work?

 4.End of Employment Issues

  • Are employees leaving the company provided their final wages, including payment for all accrued and unused vacation time?
  • Does the employer deduct any items from an employee’s final paycheck?
    • If so, are the deductions legally permitted?

5. Anti-harassment, discrimination and retaliation

  • Are supervisors provided with sexual harassment training every two years? (If employer has 50 or more employees, supervisors are legally required to have a two-hour harassment prevention training that complies with AB 1825 and amendments to this law).
  • Are supervisors and managers mentioning the open-door policy of the company to employees at routine meetings with employees? Is this being documented?

Please let me know if you have any other items your company considers during review of employment policies – it would be great to update this list to share with readers.  Have a great weekend.

This Friday’s Five comes on Cinco de Mayo – how appropriate.  The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Working Family Flexibility Act, now it is being consideredfamily - school by the Senate.  President Trump has indicated that he would sign the bill if it makes it to his desk.  Five issues California employers need to understand surrounding comp time:

1. What does the Working Family Flexibility Act provide?

The law passed by the U.S. House of Representatives adds sections to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by allowing employers to offer employees compensatory time instead of paying them for overtime worked.  The bill provides for the following:

  • Comp time is accrued at the rate of not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of overtime pay is required under the FLSA;
  • Private employers that are not unionized are required to enter into a written agreement with the employee about the comp time, and the agreement must be voluntarily entered into by the employee; and
  • The employee must have worked for the employer for at least 1,000 hours for the employer for a continuous period in the 12-month period before being eligible for comp time.

2. The Federal legislation will unlikely effect California employers

California law generally prohibits most employers from offering comp time in lieu of paid overtime.  California law requires employers to pay overtime on a more stringent basis than the FLSA (below is a description of California’s daily overtime requirements).  California’s Labor Code specifically prohibits any employee from waiving their rights to overtime under the Labor Code.  See Section 1194.  Therefore, because California law is more stringent and provides employees more protection than the FLSA (and the proposed Working Family Flexibility Act), California employers would still need to comply with California law even if the Working Family Flexibly Act is passed into federal law.

3. California’s unwaivable daily overtime requirements

Under California’s Labor Code, time and a half overtime is due for (1) time over eight hours in one day or (2) over 40 hours in one week or (3) the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day worked in a single workweek; and double time is due for (1) time over 12 hours in one day and (2) hours worked beyond eight on the seventh consecutive day in a single workweek. The DLSE provides a good summary here.

4. California employers can offer makeup time to employees, but there are strict requirements that must be meet

California employers are not without any options however, as it is easy to forget the one form of flexibility provided to California employers: makeup time. This provision allows employers to avoid paying overtime when employees want to take off an equivalent amount of time during the same work week. There are, however, a few requirements that must be met to ensure that the employer is not required to pay overtime for the makeup time.  For instance:

  • An employee may work no more than 11 hours on another workday, and not more than 40 hours in the workweek to make up for the time off;
  • The time missed must be made up within the same workweek;
  • The employee needs to provide a signed written request to the employer for each occasion that they want to makeup time (and if employers permit makeup time, they should have a carefully drafted policy on makeup time and a system to document employee requests); and
  • Employers cannot solicit or encourage employees to request makeup time, but employers may inform employees of this option.

5. Will the federal legislation influence California to provide similar flexibility to workers?

If the Working Family Flexibility Act becomes federal law, it is unlikely to influence California’s legislators to draft a similar state law.  The Democrats in the U.S. House all voted against the bill, and the left is vehemently opposed to the bill, even though it provides for the payment of all comp time accrued but not used when the employee leaves employment.  Such opposition from the Democrats make it unlikely to be considered in the California legislature.

 

Many cities and counties across California are set to increase their minimum wages in July 2017, and employers need to start preparing now.  For example, Los Angeles City and County are increasing the minimum wage for employers with 26 or more employees to $12 per hour on July 1, 2017 (currently at $10.50 per hour). This Friday’s Five video covers five issues that employers should start to review in order to comply with these increases in the minimum wage.

For more information about the local minimum wages in place throughout California:

San Diego: http://www.californiaemploymentlawrep…

Los Angeles: http://www.californiaemploymentlawrep… and http://www.californiaemploymentlawrep…

Southern California overview of various minimum wage requirements: http://www.californiaemploymentlawrep…

Sample model pay stub: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/PayStub.pdf

 

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.

The DOL’s change in the federal overtime rules requiring a higher salary threshold ($47,476 paid annually) for employees to qualify as an exempt employee takes effect December 1, 2016.  This Friday’s Five discusses five final checklist items California employers should consider when reclassifying from exempt employees to nonexempt employees.

1. The DOL rule changes are still going into effect December 1, 2016.

This week, a few people asked me if the DOL changes are still going into effect since Donald Trump was elected as president.  Mr. Trump is unable to change the DOL’s rule that requires exempt employees be paid $47,476 in an annual salary until he is inaugurated as president.  Therefore, employers still must comply with this deadline.

2. Notice to Employee may be required.

Section 2810.5 of the California Labor Code requires employers provide notice to employees of their rate(s) of pay, designated pay day, the employer’s intent to claim allowances (meal or lodging allowances) as part of the minimum wage, and the basis of wage payment (whether paying by hour, shift, day, week, piece, etc.), including any applicable rates for overtime.

The law requires that the notice is provided to employees at the time of hiring or within 7 days of a change if the change is not listed on the employee’s pay stub for the following pay period. The notice must be provided in the language the employer normally uses to communicate.

Employers should carefully review the need to provide the notice to employee given any reclassification of employees from exempt to a nonexempt employee.  A template Notice to Employee can be downloaded from the DIR’s website here.

3. Consider how the change will be communicated and documented with employees.

Employers should explain to employees who are being reclassified from exempt to nonexempt about how they will be paid.  The notice should inform workers they will be paid overtime for work over 8 hours in a day and over 40 hours in a week.  The communication should also explain any changes in bonuses (don’t forget that nondiscretionary bonuses must be figured into the employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime purposes) and benefits.  Finally, the communications should set out the different duties the employee may be required to perform given the change in classification.

4. Meal and rest breaks.

In addition to communicating the change in pay to employees, the company should also distribute its meal and rest break policy.  The company should distribute any meal and rest break forms to the employees who are being converted to nonexempt that are normally given to new hires.

5. Off the clock and timekeeping policies.

Finally, employers need to implement compliant timekeeping policies to ensure that all nonexempt employees clock in and out for all work time.  In addition, California requires that employers record when nonexempt take their meal breaks, and any reclassified employees must understand this requirement.  Employers need to be careful about allowing employees who are reclassified as nonexempt to continue to use a company cell phone or laptop, as now any work performed once they leave the office must be compensated.  Employers should consider limiting nonexempt employees’ access to company cell phones, e-mail, and computers to avoid off the clock claims.

Any reclassification and audit regarding the proper classification of employees should be done with caution, as there are many different issues to consider that are outside of the scope of this article.

With attention on the DOL’s salary increase required to meet the white collar exemptions, it is important for employers to remember that this is only one-half of the test to qualify for as an exempt employee.  The law also requires that the employee perform more than 50% of their time performing exempt duties.  For this week’s Friday’s Five, here are five examples of duties that qualify as exempt duties for the administrative exemption (click here for a description of some of the different exemptions that exist):

1.      Insurance claims adjusters

Insurance claim adjusters whose duties include activities such as interviewing insureds, witnesses and physicians; inspecting property damage; reviewing factual information to prepare damage estimates; evaluating and making recommendations regarding coverage of claims; determining liability and total value of a claim; negotiating settlements; and making recommendations regarding litigation.

2.      Financial services industry employees

Employees in the financial services industry whose duties include work such as collecting and analyzing information regarding the customer’s income, assets, investments or debts; determining which financial products best meet the customer’s needs and financial circumstances; advising the customer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different financial products; and marketing, servicing or promoting the employer’s financial products.

3.      Executive assistants

An executive assistant or administrative assistant to a business owner or senior executive of a large business generally meets the duties requirements for the administrative exemption if such employee, without specific instructions or prescribed procedures, has been delegated authority regarding matters of significance.

4.      Human resource managers

Human resources managers who formulate, interpret or implement employment policies and management consultants who study the operations of a business and propose changes in organization generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption.

5.      Purchasing agents

Purchasing agents with authority to bind the company on significant purchases generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption even if they must consult with top management officials when making a purchase commitment for raw materials in excess of the contemplated plant needs.

6.      (bonus) Property managers

In McKee v. CBF Corp. C.A. 5 (Tex) the court held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), that a “property manager” was an exempt employee under the administrative exception when her duties including overseeing the employer’s properties, ensuring they were properly maintained.  She also supervised five maintenance employees, approving their schedules and vacation time.  In addition, the property manager had employees reporting to her, as managers would generate a list of issues to be addressed on a daily basis.  She would decide which of these issues would be handled by outside contractors and tasking her employees to individual assignments.

Employers must be careful about this analysis, as California law can differ from federal law.  Therefore, experienced counsel should be consulted when conducting an audit regarding whether an employee is properly classified as an exempt employee.

This Friday’s Five is a bit of everything: news, new California employment laws, and reminders about October 1 deadlines for the City of San Diego:

 1. House moves to delay DOL overtime rule implementation.

There is a great article by Lisa Jennings from Nation’s Restaurant News summarizing the House’s move to delay the overtime rule implementation, which is set to go into place on December 1, 2016.  The White House has already threatened to veto the bill if it makes it to the President’s desk.  For more information about the DOL overtime rules, visit my posts here.

2.  San Diego employers need to ensure they are in compliance with the October 1, 2016 deadline.

The City of San Diego’s new paid sick leave law (and its “implementing ordinance”) requires employers to provide written notice to employees about the paid sick leave law by October 1, 2016 (yes – that is tomorrow).  The Implementing Ordinance requires that every employer must also provide each employee at the time of hire, or by October 1, 2016, whichever is later, written notice of the employer’s legal name and any fictitious business names, address, and telephone number and the employer’s requirements under the law.  The notice must also include information on how the employer satisfies the requirements of the law, including the employer’s method of earned sick leave accrual.  The notice must be provided to employees in English and in each employee’s primary language, if it is a language if it is spoken by at least five percent of the employees at the employer’s workplace.  Employers may provide this notice through an accessible electronic communication in lieu of a paper notice.  The City published a form notice to comply with these requirements, which can be downloaded here.

3.  Governor signs law making it illegal for out-of-state employers to have their disputes heard outside of California.

Governor Brown signed S.B 1241 into law that restricts employers from requiring employees who primarily reside and work in California to adjudicate claims outside of California when the claim arose in California, or deprive employees of California law with respect of claims arising in California.

Employers should carefully review their arbitration agreements with California employees to ensure that the agreement does not have a choice of law provision that applies another state’s law to the agreement or require any claims be adjudicated outside of California.  The effective date for the law is January 1, 2017.

4.  New CA law prohibits employers from asking about juvenile convictions.

A.B. 1843, signed into the law by Governor Brown on September 27, 2016 prohibits employers from asking or taking into consideration juvenile convictions.  The law states, “employers [are prohibited] from asking an applicant for employment to disclose, or from utilizing as a factor in determining any condition of employment, information concerning or related to an arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition that occurred while the person was subject to the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court law.”

5. NCAA and Pac-12 sued by former USC football player for unpaid wages.

An interesting class action lawsuit was filed by a former USC football player claiming that the NCAA and Pac-12 violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law by not paying football players minimum wage or overtime.  This is a different twist to the often debated issue of whether college athletes should be allowed to accept endorsement money.  It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit develops: on one side there is an argument that as the college sports programs have turned into huge profit generating centers sports, not academics could be seen as the primary focus for these athletes, but on the other hand the players are still students and many school programs do not generate huge revenues for the schools.