To qualify as an exempt employee, California requires that an employee must be “primarily engaged in the duties that meet the test of the exemption” and “earns a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.” Labor Code section 515. This forms the two-part test the employees must meet to be exempt: (1) the salary basis test and (2) the duties test. Here are five general issues employers should know about the salary basis test going into 2019:

1. Salary required to meet “white collar” exemption increases on January 1, 2019.

To be exempt from the requirement of having to pay overtime to the employee, the employee must perform specified duties in a particular manner and be paid “a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.” (Lab. Code, § 515, subd. (a).)  As of January 1, 2019, the minimum wage in California increased from $11.00 to $12.00 per hour for employers with 26 or more employees (the increase is from $10.50 per hour to $11.00 per hour for employer with 25 or fewer employees on January 1, 2019).  With the increase in the state minimum wage, there is a corresponding raise in the minimum salary required to qualify as exempt under the “white collar” exemptions.  Therefore, on January 1, 2019, in order to qualify for a white collar exemption, the employee must receive an annual salary of at least $49,920 for large employers and $45,760 for small employers.

2. Salary must be predetermined and guaranteed.

The court in Negri v. Koning & Associates set forth that in order to qualify as a “salary” the pay “must still be a predetermined amount that is not subject to reduction based upon the quantity or quality of work.”  Therefore, bonuses, commissions, and other payments made to the employee during the course of the year are usually not considered part of the employee’s salary to qualify as exempt.  Employers need to be careful about the salary calculation to ensure the employee is paid a sufficient salary that qualifies the employee as exempt.

3. The employee’s salary cannot be reduced for quality or quantity of work.

In Negri v. Koning & Associates (2013), an insurance claims adjuster challenged his employer’s exempt classification of his job.  The plaintiff was paid $29 per hour with no minimum guarantee, and when he worked more than 40 hours in a week, he still only received $29 per hour.  The employer attempted to argue that the plaintiff was an exempt employee under the administrative exemption.  The court rejected the employer’s position in holding that because the employee did not receive a guaranteed amount in “salary”, the employee did not meet the salary basis test to qualify as exempt.  In determining what constitutes a salary, the court looked to federal law:

An employee is paid on a “salary basis” if the employee “regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. Subject to the exceptions provided in paragraph (b) of this section [(relating to absences from work)], an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. Exempt employees need not be paid for any workweek in which they perform no work. An employee is not paid on a salary basis if deductions from the employee’s predetermined compensation are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.” (29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a) (2012)

Therefore, because the plaintiff’s pay varied according to the amount of time he worked, and was not guaranteed a base amount, he did not meet the salary basis test and was found to be non-exempt.

4. If misclassified, the employee is entitled to unpaid overtime.

For all non-exempt employees, overtime is owed at a rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours up to and including 12 hours in any workday, and for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.  Double the employee’s regular rate of pay is owed for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.  California’s Department of Industrial Relations FAQ on California overtime provides a good overview of the overtime requirements under California law.  In addition to the unpaid overtime that is owed to misclassified employees, employers also fact substantial penalties that accrue as a result of the employee not being paid all wages when earned.

5. Employers bear the burden of proof in establishing the exemption.

California courts have made clear that the employer bears the burden of proof when asserting that an employee is an exempt employee.  “[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee’s exemption.”  Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999).

As we are in the midst of the holiday season, employers need to be mindful about the parameters that may apply when granting employees time off to volunteer, paying employees to volunteer to support a cause, and other potential issues involving volunteer time.  This topic was raised as a suggestion from a regular reader of the blog, and if you have any topics you would like to see covered, please let me know.  This Friday’s Five covers five issues employers need to be aware of regarding time off and pay issues for volunteer time:

1. When does an employer need to pay for employee’s volunteer time?

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) issued some guidance for California employers in an opinion letter addressing whether workers for religious organizations are employees or volunteers.  The DLSE took the position that “the intent of the parties is the controlling factor.  If the person intends to volunteer his or her services for public service, religious, or humanitarian objectives, not and an employee and without contemplation of pay, the individual is not an employee….”  The DLSE continued explaining that employees of the religious, charitable, or non-profit organization can donate services as a volunteer, but these services cannot be of the “usual services of that employees’ job.”

The United States Department of Labor issued an opinion letter on the issue under federal law similar to California’s DLSE.  The DOL maintained that “time spent in work for public or charitable purposes at the employer’s request, or under his direction or control, or while the employee is required to be on the premises, is working time. However, time spent voluntarily in such activities outside of the employee’s normal working hours is not hours worked.”

The DOL explained:

Therefore, the employer need not compensate an employee for time spent volunteering for charitable purposes if the work is performed outside of normal working hours and the employee is truly volunteering, not performing the volunteer work as a result of coercion or pressure by the employer.

The DOL’s opinion letter sets forth that under federal law, an employer who encourage employees to volunteer for “public or charitable purposes” outside of normal working hours is not obligated to pay wages to the employee as long as participation is optional.  If the employee does not participate in the volunteer activity, this “will not adversely affect working conditions or employment prospects.”

2. Volunteer firefighters, reserve peace officers or emergency rescue personnel are provided with protected time off under California law. 

California’s Labor Code, Sections 230.3 and 230.4 provide leave protections to employees who volunteer as a firefighter, reserve peace officer, and emergency rescue personnel.  An employer cannot not discharge or discriminate against an employee for taking time off to perform emergency duty as a volunteer firefighter, a reserve peace officer, or emergency rescue personnel.  In addition, employers with 50 or more employees must allow employees to take temporary leaves of absence, not to exceed an aggregate of 14 days per calendar year, for the purpose of engaging in fire, law enforcement, or emergency rescue training.

3. Civil Air Patrol members are provided protected time off under California law. 

Labor Code sections 1501 and 1503 provide that employers are required to allow employees no less than 10 days per calendar year of unpaid Civil Air Patrol leave to an employee who responds to an emergency operational mission of the California Wing of the Civil Air Patrol.

4. Employers need to be careful in permitting volunteer time for certain limited causes. 

If employers do allow employees unpaid time off to volunteer for certain causes, the employer should be careful that the causes supported by the company are not viewed as supporting one political view or cause.  For example, Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.  The law also prohibits employers from “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”  Section 1102 prohibits employers from coercing or influencing employees through the threat of discharge or loss of employee to “adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.”  Employers developing a volunteer time off policy must keep these requirements in mind in order to avoid any potential claims that the policy violates this labor code section.

5. Approach unpaid internships with caution. 

Sometimes workers that are young or are looking to break into a new industry will volunteer as an intern without pay for a company or individual to learn the industry and develop contacts.  In April 2010, the DLSE issued an opinion letter setting for the analysis it would conduct in making a determination regarding whether an intern is properly classified.  In its opinion letter, the DLSE set forth that it would examine the following factors:

  1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the employer’s facilities, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
  2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees or students;
  3. The trainees or students do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observations;
  4. The employer derives no immediate advantage from the activities of trainees or students, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded;
  5. The trainees or students are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and
  6. The employer and the trainees or students understand that the trainees or students are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

While these factors are a fairly loose test, an intern attempting to challenge the classification as an intern would probably have at least a few good facts to support their position. This is why California employers need to approach the intern classification with caution.

Here are five considerations that should be on the top of every employer’s mind in California when interviewing applicants for an open position.

1. Does the applicant’s actions back-up their interview?

Don’t come to an interview saying that you have a passion for business development and marketing, but when I review your LinkedIn page you have five connections and have never written any articles on your subject matter.  You don’t have to have 1,000 connections either, but employees saying they are interested in marketing need to back this up with some actions.  And no, your 1,000 followers on your Instagram account that only has pictures of where you eat and vacation does not count either.

2. Will the applicant commit the “unforgivable sin”?

Gary Vaynerchuk explains that being able to put in long hours is not a skill that he looks for in every employee.  The “unforgivable sin” for Vaynerchuk is if employees cannot get along with co-workers, are disrespectful, selfish, or create conflict.  How can an employer find out if an applicant is not a team player?  Seeing how the applicant treats the receptionist upon arriving for the interview and how they treat the waiter at the lunch meeting can be key indicators.  Calling references provided by the applicant can lead to good information.  Also, asking around with colleagues and your network about people can surprisingly lead to great information about applicants.  For example, it amazes me how many attorneys know of other attorneys in Los Angeles and how important one’s reputation is even in a large legal community like Los Angeles.

3. Does the employer follow-up with references provided by applicant?

It is a good practice to follow-up with the applicant’s references provided.  I’m also a big proponent of conducting a search of the applicant’s background on the Internet.  For some issues that may arise when an employer uses the Internet to do a search on an applicant, my previous article on the topic can be read here.

4. Does the employer understand obligations when conducting non-criminal background checks?

When conducting background checks on applicants and employees, employers need to take time to review the applicable state and federal laws that apply to background checks.  LinkedIn was sued previously for violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for certain background reports it generated for users of the site.  In addition, under California law, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act could apply to background checks in the employment context.  These laws are very complex, and employers should enter this area with the knowledge of their obligations before conducting background checks.  For more information about background checks, please see my previous article here.

5. Does the employer understand state and local criminal history background check prohibitions?

Effective January 1, 2018 California employers cannot ask an applicant for employment to disclose information about criminal convictions.  The new law (added as Section 12952 to the Government Code) applies to employers with 5 or more employees.  Once an offer of employment has been made, employers can conduct criminal history background checks, but only when the conviction history has a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job,” and requires certain disclosures to the applicant if employment is denied based on the background check.  In addition, local governments, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco have implemented their own prohibitions on criminal history checks, and employers must also comply with these local requirements.  Don’t forget about California’s prohibition on inquiring about applicant’s prior salary history as well.

Happy Thanksgiving!  I hope everyone is getting some time to relax and enjoy some time with their families.  Entering the holiday season, it is a good time to review employer’s obligations to accommodate requests for time off for holidays and best pay practices during holiday leaves.  This Friday’s Five covers five reminders for employers about holiday leaves and pay:

1. California employers are not required to provide employees time off for holidays.

There is no requirement that California employers provide time off (except for religious accommodations – see below) for holidays. California’s DLSE’s website states the following:

Hours worked on holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays are treated like hours worked on any other day of the week. California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holidays, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday.

2. California employers are not required to pay for time off for holidays, nor are they required to pay additional wages if employees work on holidays.

Likewise, there is no requirement that employers pay employees extra pay or “holiday pay” for work performed on holidays. Employers can voluntarily agree to pay employees extra pay for work that is required during holidays, but these terms would be governed by policy set forth by the employer. Therefore, employers are urged to make sure their holiday pay policies are clearly set forth.

California’s legislature has proposed bills that would require certain employers to pay employees double time for work done on Thanksgiving, but none of these bills have become law.  For example, the “Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2016” proposed to require an employer to pay at least 2 times the regular rate of pay to employees at retail and grocery store establishments on Thanksgiving. None of these attempts by the legislature have been successful yet in requiring California employers to pay any extra “holiday pay.”

3. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for employees who cannot work on certain holidays due to religious observances.

Employers need to be aware of any religious observances of their employees since employers need to provide reasonable accommodations for employees due to religious reasons. The analysis of reasonable accommodation is required is a case by case analysis based on the company’s type of business and the accommodation requested by the employee. If the employer’s operations require employees to work during normally recognized holidays, such as a restaurant, then this should be communicated to employees in the handbook or other policies and set the expectation that an essential function of the job requires work during normal holidays.

4. If an employer does pay for time off during holidays, the employer does not have to allow employees to accrue holiday paid time off.

If an employee leaves employment before the holiday arrives, the employer is not required to pay the employee for the day off.  But the employer’s policy regarding holiday pay must clearly set out that this benefit does not accrue to employees and that they must be employed during the specific holidays to receive the holiday pay.  Often the employer will also require that the employee works the days leading up to and following the holiday in order be eligible for the holiday pay.

5. If a pay day falls on certain holidays, and the employer is closed, the employer may process payroll on the next business day.

If an employer is closed on holidays listed in the California Government Code, then the employer may pay wages on the next business days.  The DLSE’s website explains this, and other considerations, for the timing requirements for payroll.  The holidays listed in the Government Code are as follows:

  • January 1 — New Year’s Day
  • Third Monday in January — Martin Luther King Jr. Day
  • February 12 — Lincoln’s Birthday
  • Third Monday in February — Washington’s Birthday
  • Last Monday in May — Memorial Day
  • July 4 — Independence Day
  • First Monday in September — Labor Day
  • Second Monday in October — Columbus Day
  • November 11 — Veterans Day
  • Fourth Thursday in November — Thanksgiving Day
  • Day after Thanksgiving
  • December 25 — Christmas
  • Other days appointed by the governor for a public fast, thanksgiving or holiday

The DLSE’s website provides the definition of “holiday” here.

A new decision was published this week on when commute time is required to be paid by employers. Plaintiffs represented current and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company who install and repair video and internet services in customers’ homes.

Plaintiffs alleged they were owed for the time they spent traveling in an employer-provided vehicle that carried equipment and tools between their homes and a customer’s residence under an optional and voluntary Home Dispatch Program established by the employer.

Key Facts

The Plaintiff technicians were paid on an hourly basis and installed equipment at customer’s homes.  The technicians could not use their own vehicles while on the job, were required to use a company vehicle. They were also required to carry all necessary equipment and tools to perform their job in the company vehicle.  Their work day schedule started at 8:00 a.m. and lasted eight hours.

There were two options made available to the technicians for travel with the company vehicle.  The first option was the Home Dispatch Program (HDP), under which the technicians were allowed to take a company vehicle home each night instead of returning all vehicles to the Pacific Bell garage. The HDP was optional, and the techs were permitted drive the company vehicles, containing tools and equipment, to and from home each day. Technicians were not paid for any time before 8:00 spent driving from their homes to the first worksite. The technicians were not paid for the time spent driving home with the equipment and tools after their last appointment. If the technicians had to drive to the employer’s warehouse to restock equipment, they were paid for this time.

The second option available to the technicians was to pick their company vehicle up at the company garage prior to going to the first customer visit.  Under this option, they were compensated for time spent traveling to and from the garage.

Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: failure to pay the minimum wage, failure to pay wages timely, and unfair business practices.  All causes of action were based on the failure to pay for the transporting time. Here are five key issues regarding the new decision in Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company.

1. The Control Test

The court explained that the wage order defined “hours worked” as: the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.

The court noted that the California Supreme Court rejected an argument that to constitute “hours worked” the time must be spent actually working. Instead, the court held that as long as the employee is “subject to the control of an employer,” the time is considered compensable “hours worked.” Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 582-584.

In Morillion, although the employees could read or sleep on the bus, they could not use the time for their own purposes; they “were foreclosed from numerous activities in which they might otherwise engage if they were permitted to travel to the fields by their own transportation.” The court in Morillion noted that during the bus ride employees could not drop off their children, stop for food, or run other errands.  Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded, “When an employer requires its employees to meet at designated places to take its buses to work and prohibits them from taking their own transportation, these employees are ‘subject to the control of an employer,’ and their time spent traveling on the buses is compensable as ‘hours worked.’ ”  Therefore, under these facts, the employer controlled the employees within the meaning of “hours worked.”

In Morillion, the Court, however, made it clear that

“employers do not risk paying employees for their travel time merely by providing them transportation. Time employees spend traveling on transportation that an employer provides but does not require its employees to use may not be compensable as ‘hours worked.’ [Citation.] Instead, by requiring employees to take certain transportation to a work site, employers thereby subject those employees to [their] control by determining when, where, and how they are to travel. Under the definition of ‘hours worked,’ that travel time is compensable.” (Morillion, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 588.)

The court in this case noted: “The rule of Morillion applies only where use of the employer-provided transportation is compulsory.”  Plaintiffs relied on the case of Rutti v. Lojack Corp. (9th Cir. 2010) for support that the employees should be paid for this commute time.  The court rejected this argument in finding that the employees in Rutti were “required to use the company vehicle; here, plaintiffs were not.”

2. Time spent commuting in a company provided vehicle is only compensable when it is compulsory.

The court explained that employers are only required to pay for employee’s commute time in company provided vehicles if it is required.  The court examined the case of Overton v. Walt Disney Co. (2006) where Disneyland employees sued seeking compensation for the time riding the company provided shuttle from the employee parking lot one mile away from the theme park.  Because Disney did not require the employees to take the shuttle, and they were free to walk, bike, or could have been dropped off at the employee entrance, the court held that this was not considered work time.

3. Suffer or Permit to Work Test

Plaintiffs also argued that the drive time was compensable as “hours worked” under the “suffered or permitted to work” definition. They argue they were working while driving to and from home because they were transporting tools and equipment that were necessary for them to do their job.

The court explained that the phrase “suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so” “encompasses a meaning distinct from merely ‘working.’ ”  The court explained: “Our high court explained an employee is “suffered or permitted to work” when the employee is working, but not subject to the employer’s control, such as unauthorized overtime when an employee voluntarily continues to work at the end of a shift with the employer’s knowledge.”

Here, the court explained that “the standard of ‘suffered or permitted to work’ is met when an employee is engaged in certain tasks or exertion that a manager would recognize as work. Mere transportation of tools, which does not add time or exertion to a commute, does not meet this standard.”  Therefore the court held that under the suffer or permit to work test, the employee’s time was not compensable.

4. Court rejected Plaintiffs’ reliance on workers compensation cases

Plaintiffs attempted to rely on two workers compensation cases, Joyner v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 470 and Lane v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 523.  These cases held that where an employee is injured in a traffic accident on his commute home, while carrying equipment for his job, the employer relationship continued such that the employee’s injuries were compensable and not subject to the coming and going rule.  In rejecting these holdings as binding in this case, the court noted, “These cases address a different issue than the one before us and therefore we find them inapposite. Further, we note that in both of these cases, the employee was not being paid by his employer for his commute time when the accident happened.”

5. Simply carrying tools does not necessarily make employee commute time compensable.

Defendant made that because the employees were carrying tools in the vehicle during the commute, this made the time compensable work time.  The court rejected this argument in noting defendant’s argument that “if carrying equipment necessary for the job were always compensable, every employee who carries a briefcase of work documents or an electronic device to access work emails to and from work would need to be compensated for commute time.”

The court agreed with a federal district court’s decision in Dooley v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. that:  “To the extent that some of these cases state broadly that travel time is compensable if employees are transporting equipment without which their jobs could not be done, e.g., Crenshaw, 798 F.2d at 1350, I read these statements as implying that the transportation involves some degree of effort. Otherwise, as observed earlier, the commutes of police officers who carry guns, or indeed, employees who carry badges, would always be compensable.”  There is a difference in effort between transporting heavy equipment for servicing oil wells as compared to the “incidental” transportation of cable TV equipment and tools in the case at hand.  Therefore, the fact that employees carried tools from and from work in this case did not make the time compensable.

The case, Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (November 15, 2018) can be downloaded here.

Parties involved in litigation should always keep an open mind about mediation at every stage of litigation.  Cases that resolve without having to go through a trial or arbitration can potentially save the parties a lot of time and money in litigation.  This article touches on five items parties need to understand about mediation.

1. Mediation is non-binding.
Mediation is a voluntary process in which litigants (or even parties prior to litigation) agree to use a private third-party to help settle the case. People sometimes confuse mediation with arbitration. Arbitration is when parties agree to use a private third-party to hear their case, much like a judge, to make decisions about the case, and eventually decide the case. Arbitration can be binding on the parties, and the arbitrator actually decides who is right and wrong as a matter of law. On the other hand, a mediator is not deciding any issues about the case, but is simply hearing both sides’ positions, and then works with the parties to see if there is a potential resolution that the parties would both agree to. The mediator has no ability to decide issues of the case, or make any binding rulings about the case. The mediator is only an unbiased third-party attempting to get the parties to consider a possible resolution to the case.

2. Mediation takes place with a private mediator –usually not the court.
The parties voluntarily agree upon the selection of a mediator. Usually the mediator has expertise in the area of the law that the case involves so that he or she can move quicker into the substance of the parties’ disagreement. There are many retired judges or lawyers that work as mediators. Some mediators are active practicing lawyers that also have a mediation service established.
The mediation usually takes place at the mediator’s office. Normally the mediator has the parties in separate rooms, and the mediator walks between the two rooms. There are many mediations during which the parties will not see other side the entire day.

3. Negotiations during the mediation are privileged and cannot be used against either party during litigation.
California law prevents any of the negotiations or potential admissions made during mediation from being brought up in court or during litigation. The rationale for this rule is that the courts want people to be able to negotiate during mediation, this involves some give and take. Therefore, in order to assist the mediation process, any of the discussions or negotiations during mediation are prevented from being used against the other party. This allows parties to discuss items more freely during mediation in hopes of having a better chance at resolving the case. However, it should be noted that if a party makes an admission during mediation, the other party can still conduct discovery after the mediation and bring that admission into the case through the standard discovery process. So parties should follow their counsel’s advice about which facts to share during the mediation process. But rest assured, the fact that one party agreed to offer a certain amount to settle the case during mediation, this offer to settle cannot be brought up to the jury later in the case as a way to establish liability.

4. The mediator’s only role is to get the case settled.
The mediator is not there to make friends, tell you if he believes you more than the other side, or make a value judgment about the case or people involved. His or her role is simply to get the case resolved. This usually means that for a successful mediator both sides don’t like the mediator. This is because the mediator was able to move two opponents to agree to a resolution of the case, and to get to this point usually means that both sides are unhappy with the resolution.

5. Even if the case does not settle at mediation, it could still be a successful mediation.
The parties need to understand that mediation is a process and it is hard to settle cases in one day – even a long day – of mediation. Sometimes it is clear during the mediation that the parties cannot settle the case. Sometimes it takes the mediator working with the parities for weeks after the mediation to arrive at a settlement. If the case does not settle, it is also beneficial for the parties that during the course of a mediation to realize that maybe they are still too far apart to agree to a settlement and there needs to be further discovery and motions filed to narrow down the issues that are being litigated.

It is important for employers in California to make sure that their front-line managers dealing with employees on a day-to-day basis are knowledgeable about different employment issues that routinely come up in the employment context.  This week’s Friday’s Five covers five areas that employers should review with their managers to ensure they inform the appropriate executives about any potential issues in the workplace:

1. At-will employment

Under California law, it is presumed that all employment is terminable at-will. California Labor Code section 2922 provides: “An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.” The at-will doctrine means that the employment relationship can be terminated by either party at any time, with or without cause, and with or without advanced notice. There are some major exceptions to this rule, but generally California law recognizes that employers and employees may, at any time, and for any legal reason, terminate the employment relationship.  Of course managers should consult with human resources or the appropriate executive before terminating an employee, but managers need to understand that they can terminate employees with or without cause and should be trained on the legal parameters of at-will employment.

2. Anti-harassment, discrimination and retaliation

California employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees who are employed as of July 1, 2005, and to all new supervisory employees within six months of assuming a supervisory position.  All covered employers must provide sexual harassment training and education to each supervisory employee once every two years.  In 2015, California requires that a portion of the training also address “abusive conduct.”  More information about what topics must be covered in the training, who qualifies to provide the training, as well as other requirements about the training can be found here.

Managers should also be trained about the employer’s obligation to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

3. Timekeeping requirements

California law requires employers to track start and stop times for hourly, non-exempt employees. The law also requires employer to track the start and stop times for the employee’s thirty minute meal periods. The time system needs to be accurate, and the employer needs to be involved in the installation and setup of the system. Do not simply use the default settings for the hardware and software. Understand what the system is tracking and how it is recording the data. Since the statute of limitations for California wage and hour violations can extent back four years, it is recommended that employers take steps to keep these records at least four years.  Employers should also have a complaint procedure in place and regularly communicate the policy to employees in order to establish an effective way to remedy any issues.

4. Meal and rest break requirements

As I’ve written about many times previously, employers must have a compliant meal and rest break policy.  Indeed, given the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Augustus v. ABM Security Services in December 2016, employers should review their rest beak policy to ensure it complies with this ruling.

5. Responding to requests for records and legal notices

There are many different Labor Code provisions that obligate the employer to provide current and former employees with a copy of their personnel files and/or payroll records.  For example, Labor Code section 432 permits employees to obtain a copy of any document they signed, Labor Code section 1198.5 allows current and former employees to obtain copies of their personnel records, and Labor Code section 226(c) permits employees to inspect or copy payroll records within 21 days after making a request to do so.

Managers need to be trained to immediately inform management or Human Resources about any requests to obtain these records by current and former employees.  In addition, managers should be trained to immediately report receiving any legal notices, including the following:

A new decision, Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC, analyzes the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which changed the test for independent contractors under California law.  In Border Transportation, Plaintiff Jesus Cuitalhuac Garcia filed the case against Border Transportation Group, LLC and its owners for wage and hour violations stemming from his classification as an independent contractor.  The trial court agreed with the company’s classification as an independent contractor in granting Border Transportation’s motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff appealed the ruling granting the motion for summary judgment, and while the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court issued Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court.

The appellate court, in Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC, held that summary adjudication should not have been granted as to the wage order claims, but was proper as to the non-wage-order claims.  Here are five key take-aways from the Border Transportation decision:

1. Borello factors for distinguishing “employees” from “independent contractors”

Border Transportation filed a motion for summary judgment before the trial court arguing that it did not exercise control over Garcia, who was a taxi driver for the company.  The company also argued that Garcia’s supervisor’s role was limited to collecting payments from plaintiff and other drivers, and never reprimand plaintiff during his employment.

The court set out that the California Supreme Court in Borello “defined a general approach to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.”  In Borello, the court explained that the “principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom the service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.”  The right to discharge the worker at will, without cause, is strong evidence of an employment relationship.

In addition to the “control” over the workers, Borello also set forth other factors (“secondary indicia”) to review in determining worker’s employment status:

(a) whether the one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (b) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision; (c) the skill required in the particular occupation; (d) whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (e) the length of time for which the services are to be performed; (f) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (g) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal; and (h) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of employer-employee.

Borello also makes it clear that the classification used by the parties can be considered, but it is not determinative of how the employee should be classified.

2. “Suffer or permit to work” definition of employment

In Martinez v. Combs, the California Supreme Court reviewed the definitions of “employ” under the IWC Wage Orders and held that there were three alternative definitions of employ.  The broadest definition of employ is to “suffer or permit to work.”  Generally, the court explained that employers who know people are working and not being paid for the work or by not preventing unpaid work from occurring, “clearly suffers or permits that work” and is liable for the wages for these workers.

The court set forth that “the Supreme Court [in Dynamex] explained, the trial court properly applied the ‘suffer or permit to work’ definition of employment in Martinez, instead of the ‘control’ test in Borello, to evaluate class certification for wage order claims.”  However, the Dynamex decision did not address “what standard applies to non-wage-order claims.”

Under the ABC test set forth in Dynamex, a worker is presumed to be an employee, unless the hiring entity establishes each of the following:

(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. (Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 957.)

3. Wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) set forth requirements for employers that are distinct from the Labor Code.

As the court explained, the IWC developed “constitutionally authorized, quasi-legislative regulations” that “impose obligations relating to the minimum wages, maximum hours, and a limited number of very basic working conditions (such as minimally required meal and rest breaks) of California employees” in various industries.  Employers are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the wage order that applies to their industry (click here for a list of the 17 IWC wage orders).

4.The Dynamex ABC test only applies to wage-order claims, and the Borello test applies to all other claims.

The court in Border Transportation held that “Dynamex applied the ‘suffer or permit to work’ standard contained in the wage order without deciding what standard applied to non-wage-order claims, such as claims for expense reimbursement (such as for fuel or toll road fees) under Labor Code, section 2802.  The court in Border Transportation explained:

[Dynamex] did not reject Borello, which articulated a multifactor test for determining employment status under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Nor did it address the appellate court’s ruling that “insofar as the causes of action in the complaint . . . are not governed by the wage order” and predicated solely on the Labor Code, “the Borello standard is the applicable standard for determining whether a worker is properly considered an employee or an independent contractor.”

The court held that the “suffer or permit to work” and the ABC test was applicable to the wage order claims because the wage orders define “employ” in this language, and the wage orders regulate very basic working conditions and are meant to cover the widest class of workers.

Therefore, the court held that plaintiff’s wage-order claims for unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish itemized wage statements, and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) are governed by the “suffer or permit to work” standard set forth in Dynamex.  Plaintiff’s remaining claims for overtime (the wage order does not apply to taxicab drivers), wrongful termination and waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203, are not covered by the wage orders, and therefore are subject to the Borello test.

Therefore, the court found that as to plaintiff’s wage order claims, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was an employee under the ABC test.  The ABC test “presumes a worker hired by an entity is an employee and places the burden on the hirer to establish that the worker is an independent contractor.”

5. Part C of the ABC test under Dynamex requires the company to show an existing independent business operation for independent contractors. 

The court explained that “Dynamex makes clear that the question in part C is not whether [Border Transportation] prohibited or prevented [plaintiff] from engaging in an independently established business.”  Instead, the analysis is if the plaintiff “independently has made the decision to go into business for himself or herself” and “generally takes the usual steps to establish and promote his or her independent business – for example, through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers, and the like.”

Defendant relied upon a 2015 Massachusetts Supreme Court case, Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., to argue that Boston taxi drivers who leased medallions from owners were “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.” In rejecting this analogy to the facts in this case, the court held that “Dynamex makes clear that California follows the version of part C that requires an existing, not potential, showing of independent business operation.”  The court held that based on the facts in this case, plaintiff was dependent on the company for his taxi permit, and therefore did not have the ability to independently operate on his own accord.  Indeed, the court noted that defendant “did not establish that [plaintiff] ‘is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.”

Regular readers of the blog probably know about my YouTube channel for the Employment Law Report.  This Friday’s Five focuses on recent popular videos I’ve published covering employment law updates, best practices, and an interview with a restaurant consultant.  Hope you enjoy the videos, and please subscribe to the channel to make sure you don’t miss any future updates.

1. 5 Huge Misconceptions About California Employment Law

2. California’s Paid Sick Leave – Quick Update

3.California’s New ABC Test For Independent Contractors

4. My Five Free Resources for California Employers

5. My interview with Salar Sheik from Savory Hospitality

I am not sure of the cause, but my office has seen an increase in Labor Commissioner claims filed over the last two months.  Employers need to prepare and plan on how to defend these claims, and with some planning, the process is a lot less daunting.  Here are five effective strategies in defending Labor Commissioner claims:

1. Understanding the claims made by the employee.

Employers usually become aware of a complaint to the Labor Commissioner when they receive a Notice of Claim and Conference from the Labor Commissioner’s office.  Employers are not required to file any paperwork in response to the notice of conference, but the employer or an employer’s representative is required to appear at the conference at the date and time indicated on the notice.  The conference is not the actual hearing on the matter, rather the conference is structured as a non-binding settlement conference during which the Labor Commissioner discusses the various allegations, the employer’s response, and will attempt to mediate a resolution between the parties.

2. Ensure the claims alleged by the employee can be heard by the Labor Commissioner.

The Labor Commissioner can only hear disputes for “any action to recover wages, penalties, and other demands for compensation.”  Labor Code section 98(a).  Therefore, the Labor Commissioner cannot adjudicate any other types of employment claims, such as harassment or discrimination.  Likewise, if the employer has a counter claim against the employee, it cannot be heard by the Labor Commissioner, but must be filed in court.

Likewise, if the employee has an arbitration agreement with the employer, the employer can compel arbitration of the claim and remove jurisdiction from the Labor Commissioner.

3. Decide if legal representation is required during the Labor Commissioner complaint process.

Neither the employee and the employer are required to have an attorney during any stage of the Labor Commissioner process.  Whether or not an employer decides to have legal representation during the process depends on how comfortable the employer is with handling these issues and how well they understand the law in order to articulate the appropriate defenses available to them.  Also, many employers attend the settlement conference (discussed below) without legal representation if they are comfortable with the issues, and if the case does not settle and is set for a hearing, then the employer has an attorney assist with the hearing.

4. Understanding strengths and weaknesses of case going in to settlement hearing.

Although it is not mandatory, most Labor Commissioner offices will often set the matter for a settlement conference.  Employers often misunderstand the purpose of the initial settlement conference.  The settlement conference is not the hearing on the matter in which the Labor Commissioner takes sworn testimony and makes a decision.  While this step is not the actual hearing that will determine who should prevail, employers should prepare evidence and documents that will be persuasive during the settlement conference to establish defenses to the employee’s claims.  It is also good to listen to the employee’s facts and learn what they are claiming, what evidence they may have, and who may be witnesses.  It is important to learn this information in the event that the case does not settle and is set for a formal hearing.

It is important for employers to review the paperwork provided from the Labor Commissioner’s office to ensure that they gather and bring the required paperwork to the settlement conference.

Usually the Labor Commissioner requires the following background information from the employer:

  1. Completion of the DLSE’s Report of Workers’ Compensation Insurance
  2. City business license
  3. Articles of information filed with the Secretary of State
  4. Any documentation that may be applicable to the employee’s claims: payroll records, time sheets, handbook and applicable policies, correspondence with the employee, etc.…

The employer should also review the employee’s allegations in the notice of claim and prepare an outline of defenses and facts that support their position.

Employers should also understand the arguments in support of their defenses so that those can be articulated to the employee and Labor Commissioner.  The more persuasive the employer’s case is, the more likely that the case can be resolved for a nominal amount during the settlement conference.

Employers should be prepared to negotiate during the settlement conference and be prepared with a range of how much they would be willing to settle the case. An experienced employment law attorney can help address the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and can help advise on the appropriate settlement offer, if any, that could be made.

5. Preparing for hearing.

If the case does not settle at the settlement conference, or if there was never a settlement conference set, the Labor Commissioner will set the matter for a hearing pursuant to Labor Code section 98(a).  The hearings are often referred to as “Berman” hearings after the name of the legislator who sponsored the bill creating this procedure.  The basic idea behind Berman hearings is to provide a relatively fast way to resolve wage disputes.  However, with the state budget constraints, the hearings are usually set for about one year from the date that the settlement conference takes place.

The hearing takes place in the Labor Commissioner’s office, and is usually in a conference room.  The Labor Commissioner will tape record the hearing, and all witnesses’ testimony is provided under oath, just like it would be if they were testifying in court.  The Labor Commissioner can issue subpoenas compelling the attendance of parties at the hearing, as well as compelling parties to produce documents at the hearing.

  • Direct examination questions for the employer’s witnesses
  • Cross-examination questions for claimant, and potential cross-examination questions for any witnesses that claimant may bring to the hearing
  • Prepare key exhibits. Prepare to have documents that support the employers case ready to present at the hearing (generally it is good to have multiple copies of the exhibits so that they can be handed out during the hearing and everyone has a copy to refer to).  Handbook policies, meal and rest break policies and acknowledgments, timekeeping policies, and time records are generally the types of exhibits that an employer would rely on in establishing that the employee was permitted to take breaks and was paid for all time worked.
  • Prepare witnesses that support defense. Employers can bring in witnesses that support the employer’s defense.  For example, evidence can be submitted through managers or supervisors that are able testify to the fact that the employee was always clocked-in when they were working or had the ability to take meal and rest breaks.  Also, co-workers who worked with the claimant are also good witnesses to establish that they always saw the claimant take breaks and never saw them working off the clock.

Generally, employers need to be prepared but flexible for how the hearing will proceed.  The Labor Commissioner conducting the hearing has a lot of flexibility on how the parties are to present witnesses and conduct cross-examinations.  The rules of evidence are not controlling in the proceeding, but the Labor Commissioner generally has discretion to control the evidence presented during the hearing.  The Labor Commissioner can, and usually will, ask questions of their own to get a better understanding of certain issues.

After the hearing, the Labor Commissioner will issue a written order that must be served on all parties.  Unless this order is appealed, it is a binding judgment against the parties, and a certified copy of the order is filed with the superior court and judgment is entered.