A lot was happening this week in California’s employment law.  This week’s Friday’s Five is a round-up on the highlights:

1.       Los Angeles City Council votes to require employers to provide 6 days of paid sick leave.

The LA City Council approved a measure to require employers to provide employees up to six paid sick days per year.  This is double the requirement under California state law that went into effect July 1, 2015.  It is likely that the law will go into effect July 2016.  The rules do not apply to small businesses with 25 employees or less until July 2017.  The law still must be drafted by the city attorneys.

2.       Uber settles class action cases for $100 million.

The settlement was reached this week by Uber to settle two class actions, one pending in California and the other in Massachusetts.  The class actions alleged that Uber improperly classified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, and was seeking damages resulting from the misclassification.  The settlement provides $84 million to be distributed to the drivers “in California and Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since August 16, 2009” until the court approves the settlement agreement.  The settlement resolves these cases, but Uber will likely have to continually fight this issue.  For more on the factors a court would look to in determining if an independent contractor has been misclassified, see my previous articles here.

 

 

3.       “Restrictive” Scheduling bill is working its way through California’s legislature.

Senate Bill 878 proposes to require retail establishments, grocery stores, and restaurants to set employees schedules 28 days in advance, and impose penalties on the employer if the schedule is modified by the employer.  In addition to the “modification pay” the employer would be required to pay to the employee, if the employer does not comply with the proposed law, the bill also adds a $4,000 penalty for failing to accurately provide “modification pay”, another $4,000 penalty for any harm that results to the employee or “another person” due to a violation of the law, and the ability for the employee to bring suit under the Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA), among other penalties.

4.       California HR consulting company cited for $1 million for misclassification of exempt employees.

TriNet Human Resources Corp. provides outsource human resources solutions for small and medium sized business, was cited by the U.S. Department of Labor for failing to pay time and a half to 267 employees who worked more than 40 hours per week.  The case shows how often times the test to determine if an employee is exempt or nonexempt is not black or white.  If an HR company can get into legal trouble over the issue, it shows that employers must approach the exempt classification of employees very carefully.

5.       Reminder that California regulations may require an update to sexual harassment policies.

As I’ve written about previously, new regulations issued by California’s Fair Employment and Housing Counsel set for additional steps employers should consider in regards to their discrimination, harassment, and retaliation policies.   These regulations are effective April 1, 2016.

If you know Garyvee, you may be asking yourself how could an employment law blog rely upon advice from someone who has not only admitted, but takes pride in, the fact that he checked out of school in the third grade, does not read books, and uses language that makes most standup comedian’s performances seem tame?  However, to underestimate Gary is a huge mistake, and he brings a refreshing and realistic view of the workplace as it exists in 2016, that many companies could learn some important lessons from.

Gary is an entrepreneur who has a noted career in growing his family wine business from $3M to a $60M business in five years.  After that, he started Vayner Media, a digital marketing company, that now employees over 600 employees.  His is also an angel investor and venture capitalist.  I’ve recently listened to the audio version of his new book, The #AskGaryVee Book, twice in the last couple of weeks.  In listening to the book, I realized that his perspective on the workplace is the modern perspective that I’ve often advocated for on this blog.

For today’s Friday’s Five, here are five lessons from The #AskGaryVee Show (Gary’s Youtube channel) that employers must understand:

1)      Where are the best place to hire employees these days?

Search key terms on twitter search and do the homework.  Do the work.  Search terms about the items the employee would be doing, going to the person’s home page, and then email them asking if they are looking for a job.  It takes time, but you have to put in the work.

 

2)      How do you handle “Eeyore” employees?  The one that always sound like they’re whining and pessimistic.

Fire them.  Energy is very important, and dragging down the team is bad.  Not having the smarts is better than being a downer on the team.  It is pretty easy to see who is enthusiastic about their work.  Also, it is incredible how a small group of employees can affect the company.  Managers have to be careful not to confuse this with being an introvert.  Being introverted is something that needs to be recognized, and not looked down upon.  Moping is different than being quiet and introverted, and being introverted is not necessarily a bad quality to have.

 

3)      On your team, is it better to have employees that specialize in one thing or someone who can wear multiple hats?

Both work, but Gary is a fan of a jack of all trades.  He hates when people use the excuse that they are great at one thing to stop from getting better at another thing.

 

4)      Would you support Vayner employees writing their own books and curating their own content streams/personal brands?

Yes.  You cannot say you want to build around the employees, and then suppress them.  Leaders have to believe so much in themselves that they are not afraid to help employees grow.

 

5)      As a guy who loves hustle and people, what is the “unforgivable sin” one of your employees could make?

Gary is not worried about people’s work ethic.  While hustle may be the leader’s skill, and being able to work long hours, it does not have to be the skill of employees.  The only sin is to not figuring out a way to play nice with the boys and girls they work with.  Being disrespectful or being selfish is completely unacceptable, as is creating conflict.

Yes, it is only April, but even if employers updated their handbooks at the beginning of 2016, they should take another look at the handbooks to ensure they comply with new regulations issued by California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council.  The new regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act are effective April 1, 2016.  While the regulations are a restatement of the current law, they set forth an additional requirement that employers adopt a written discrimination, harassment, and retaliation prevention policy that meet certain conditions.

The new regulations provide that employers “have an affirmative duty to create a workplace environment that is free from employment practices prohibited by the Act.”  The regulations set forth that in addition to providing employees the Department’s DFEH-185 brochure on sexual harassment, or an alternative writing that complies with Government Code section 12950, employers are required to develop a harassment, discrimination, and retaliation policy that meets certain requirements.

Recommended actions for employers:

  1. Update handbooks to ensure the harassment policy complies with the new regulations.
  2. Update handbook acknowledgments to obtain written acknowledgments from employees that they have received the new policy.
  3. Review the new hire packets provided to new employees to ensure it contains the brochure DFEH-185 and all other required documents (disclosures and policies required to be provided to employees is becoming very detailed and complicated to comply with).
  4. Ensure all companies with 50 or more employees are compliant with its obligation to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to all managers/supervisors.

Please contact me if you have any questions about updating handbooks or new hire packets to comply with these regulations.

This video is the third installment of three videos covering issues surrounding terminations in California.  For today’s Friday’s Five, in this final video in the series I discuss five common questions employers have about severance agreements:

  1. When are severance agreements appropriate in California?
  2. What are common terms in severance agreements? Such as a non-disparagement clauses and reference clauses.
  3. How much of a payment is required to the employee in a severance agreement?
  4. What is a section 1542 waiver of all known and unknown claims?
  5. Can employers include confidentiality provisions in severance agreements?

In order to obtain the termination checklist for California employers, please email me.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council published new regulations pertaining to anti-discrimination and anti-harassment requirements effective April 1, 2016.  Employers need to review and potentially update their policies in order to meet the new requirements.
The full text of the regulations can be obtained here.

Another Friday, another Friday’s Five.  If you are new to the Employment Law Report, I write about a topic and include five items employers should understand on that topic every Friday.  This Friday’s Five discusses the documents employers should consider providing to employees at the end of employment.

The documents include:

  1. Notice of change of relationship
  2. For Your Benefit, California’s Program for the Unemployed – pamphlet published by the EDD
  3. HIPP notice
  4. COBRA notice
  5. For layoffs, potential WARN Act and California’s Baby-WARN Act

To download these documents and more information click here.

Click here to subscribe to the Employment Law Report Youtube Channel.

Employers should review the issue with legal counsel to ensure that they are providing the required documents for their particular situation.

This week’s Friday Five is a discussion focused on a discussion of considerations employers should make during the termination process, such as:

  • how to document reasons for terminations (and why it is important to be accurate and honest)
  • when final wages are due
  • where to provide final wages
  • payment of expense reimbursements, and
  • direct deposit of final wages

Friday’s 5 is here.  This post covers five issues that commonly arise when dealing with employment Shaking handscontracts and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements.  It is a very broad area to discuss, so, as always, this is a very general overview.  However, employers and executives alike should have a basic understanding about the legalities and enforceability of such clauses in California.

1.      At-Will employment, and Labor Code Sections 2924 and 2925.

California’s Labor Code section 2922 provides that employees are at-will: “An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.”

However, if the employer and employee enter into a contract for employment, California’s Labor Code specifically sets out that the employer or the employee may terminate any employment contract for any willful breach of the duties owed to each other.  Labor Code Section 2924 provides:

An employment for a specified term may be terminated at any time by the employer in case of any willful breach of duty by the employee in the course of his employment, or in case of his habitual neglect of his duty or continued incapacity to perform it.

Labor Code Section 2925 likewise provides:

An employment for a specified term may be terminated by the employee at any time in case of any wilful or permanent breach of the obligations of his employer to him as an employee.

2.      Agreements restraining individuals from engaging in a lawful profession is void under Business and Professions Code Section 16600. 

Employment contracts, non-competition agreements, and/or non-solicitation agreements can be challenged under Business and Professions Code section 16600.  That Section provides a very broad rule voiding any contract that limits an employee’s ability to engage in their profession:

Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.

3.      Exception to Section 16600 – Narrow Restraint

One exception to Business and Professions Code Section 16600’s prohibition on restraining an employee’s ability to work is if the restraint is narrowly drafted.  Restraints on the pursuit of “only a small or limited part of the business, trade or profession” have been upheld by California courts.  As the court in General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. TPS Package Engineering, Inc. explained, “[A] contract does not have to impair a party’s access to every potential customer to contravene section 16600…. [A] contract can effectively destroy a signatory’s ability to conduct a trade or business by placing a substantial segment of the market off limits.”  General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. TPS Package Engineering, Inc., 126 F.3d 1131, 1132–33 (9th Cir.1997)

There is also a strong public policy against enforcing agreements that restrict employee’s ability to work in the profession they chose.  California Courts have noted, “the interests of the employee in his own mobility and betterment are deemed paramount to the competitive business interest of the employers ….”

4.      Exception to Section 16600 – Protection of trade secrets and to prevent unfair competition

As one court has noted, “Section 16600 has specifically been held to invalidate employment contracts which prohibit an employee from working for a competitor when the employment has terminated, unless necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets.” Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network, 22 Cal.App.4th 853, 859 (1994). In addition, any such restrictions must be “carefully limited.” Id. at 861.

For example, in Gordon Termite Control v. Terrones, 84 Cal.App.3d 176, 179 (1978) the court refused to enforce an agreement prohibiting an employee from calling on any accounts he had called on while with former employer, finding “[k]nowledge of potential customers … is not a trade secret ….”

Moreover, the information must be an actual trade secret to obtain this protection.  In Gordon v. Landau, 49 Cal.2d 690, 694 (1958), the court found that an agreement restricting a door-to-door salesman from using his former employer’s confidential customer list was valid under section 16600.  However, in Letona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc., 82 F.Supp.2d 1089 (1999), the court rejected the employer’s argument that was seeking to protect information that qualified as a “trade secret” because “Aetna’s own admission that such information is ‘publicly available at Aetna’s website on the Internet” destroyed any argument that the information was secret.

5.  Out-of-State employers must be cautious about using form agreements.

Employers should heed the warning issued by the court in Letona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. to out-of-state employers using form agreements in California:

Aetna took the contract it uses in other states and, without regard to California law, and contrary to the clear prohibition contained in section 16600, compelled its California employees to sign it or be fired. Aetna’s claim that it should not be held responsible for wrongful termination unless it “knew” the provision was unenforceable misses the mark.  Aetna knew it was operating in California and would be subject to its laws. Section 16600, or a version thereof, has been on the books since 1872. See Bosley Medical Group v. Abramson, 161 Cal.App.3d 284, 288, 207 Cal.Rptr. 477 (1984). It is not asking too much for Aetna to refrain from requiring its employees to sign presumptively illegal provisions and then firing them when they decline to do so.

Photo: Casa Thomas Jefferson

Generally, California employers must comply with the following rules governing whether they may obtain criminal history information when conducting background checks for applicants or employees:

  1. Employers cannot consider prior arrests not leading to conviction in employment decisions.
  2. Employers cannot seek information or rely on information pertaining to referral to diversion programs.
  3. California prohibits employers from relying on information about expunged or sealed records.
  4. Employers cannot collect or rely on information about misdemeanor convictions for marijuana possession more than two years old.
  5. Employers may consider arrests for which the applicant is waiting for trail, and convictions.

In regards to item number 5, employers must be aware that California’s Fair Employment & Housing Council has proposed regulations that could make employer’s use of any criminal history in the employment context if the use of the information would “have an adverse impact on individuals on a basis protected by the Act, including, but not limited to, gender, race, and national origin.”  Employers would be prohibited from using criminal information in employment decisions if it would create an adverse impact on individuals and the employer cannot demonstrate that the criminal history is job-related with business necessity or if the employee can show that there is a less discriminatory means of achieving the business necessity.  The Council is considering written comments about this proposed regulation from any interested party until April 7, 2016.  Comments can be submitted by e-mail to FEHCouncil@dfeh.ca.gov.

Employers must also be aware of their local ordinances, such as those in San Francisco, that create additional prohibitions, Federal requirements and the changing legal landscape in this area.

Today’s Friday’s Five focuses on five aspects of responding to employee’s complaints made on social media.  Yelp has been in the news recently (Another ex-Yelp worker is calling the company out after being fired, CNNMoney; Yelp’s Tweet About Fired Employee Could Spell Legal Trouble, Inc.com [I was quoted in this article]), for how it responded to two former employees’ complaints on social media about the company.  The incident is a great learning opportunity for employers.  Employers need to understand that this is the new reality, employees feel that they need to voice their concerns very publicly on social media, and these complaints can spread quickly.  Employers also need to plan ahead and have a system and policies in place before they are confronted with this type of situation so their response can protect the company without creating legal liability.  Here are five lessons for employers about responding to employee’s complaints on social media: