2016 will be a year in which joint employer liability will be a major issue for employers.  Why am I making this prediction?  First, the NLRB has refocused attention to this issue in hopes of expanding the number of employers that can be found jointly liable.  Second, the Department of Labor issued an Administrative Interpretation this week and set up a new website setting out how the DOL views the joint employer analysis.  Today’s Friday’s Five focuses on five issues employers should review regarding the joint employer analysis.

1.      Employers should review the DOL’s Administrative Interpretation on the joint employer relationship

On January 20, 2016, the Department of Labor issued an Administrative Interpretation regarding how it views and would analyze whether there is joint employer liability between two or more different entities that share workers.  The Administrative Interpretation can be read here.

The DOL sets out the difference between horizontal joint-employers and vertical-joint employers:

 Horizontal joint employment exists where the employee has employment relationships with two or more employers and the employers are sufficiently associated or related with respect to the employee such that they jointly employ the employee. The analysis focuses on the relationship of the employers to each other.

…

Vertical joint employment exists where the employee has an employment relationship with one employer (typically a staffing agency, subcontractor, labor provider, or other intermediary employer) and the economic realities show that he or she is economically dependent on, and thus employed by, another entity involved in the work. This other employer, who typically contracts with the intermediary employer to receive the benefit of the employee’s labor, would be the potential joint employer. Where there is potential vertical joint employment, the analysis focuses on the economic realities of the working relationship between the employee and the potential joint employer.

The DOL’s opinion letter sets out the factors it would review in making a determination under the horizontal or vertical joint employment scenarios, and employers should review these factors.  The DOL also created a website setting out additional information about joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

2.      California’s joint employer test

“[T]he basis of liability is the defendant’s knowledge of an failure to prevent the work form occurring.”  Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.App.4th 35, 70.  Therefore, to be an employer, the entity must have power to prevent the worker from performing work.  If there is no control to prevent the work, the entity cannot be held liable as a joint employer.

California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) also sets forth law regarding California’s wage and hour requirements.  The IWC definition also includes “any person … who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”  The court in Martinez held that a joint employer relationship exists when one entity, which hires and pays workers, places the worker with another entity that supervises the work.  There are many factors that a court can look to in making this determination, and employers should approach

3.      Additional responsibilities for California employers under Labor Code section 2810.3

Effective January 1, 2015, Labor Code section 2810.3 expanded the liability of “client employers” that obtain workers through temporary agencies or other labor contractors.  The law requires that the client employer who obtains the workers through the agency must share in the liability for any wage and workers compensation issues.  The law also provides that a client employer cannot shift all of the liability for wage and workers compensation violations.  However, the law does provide that the client employer can seek indemnity from the labor contractor for violations.  Therefore, it is important for employers who are covered by Labor Code section 2810.3 and who are obtaining workers through a labor contractor to ensure the labor contractor is meeting all wage and workers compensation requirements, and negotiate an indemnity provision in the contact with the labor contractor should any liability arise.

4.      Even if there is found to be a joint employer relationship, there is no personal liability for unpaid wages under CA law (but see item #5 below)

California law does not hold corporate officers or directors personally liable for unpaid wages by the corporate employer.  See Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1085 (2005).  This is different than the FLSA, which does impose liability on “any person” acting on behalf of the employer  for unpaid wages.  It is important to note that under California law personal liability could still be imposed on a company’s officers or owners under the alter ego theory.

5.      However, there may be personal liability for civil penalties imposed under CA law

In addition, the California Labor Code’s civil penalties could be imposed on individuals.  For example, Labor Code section 558(a) provides that “any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer” who violates or causes a violation could be held personally liable for applicable civil penalties.  Labor Code section 1197.1 that applies to minimum wage likewise holds individuals potentially liable for civil penalties for failure to pay minimum wages.  See Labor Code section 1197.1.  Therefore, employers need to review and set up policies and practices to ensure that they do not find their companies, and potentially themselves personally liable for liability created by an outside agency that supplies workers for to them.

Gary Vaynerchuk discusses how he uses social media to engage with his 500 or so employees and addresses the risks on The Ask Gary Vee Show, episode 176 (video below).   Gary made his career using social media, and continues to do so in running his digital media company, Vayner Media.  So it does not come as much of a surprise that he embraces using social media to engage with employees.  He is correct in his position that “intent trumps everything.”  He means that if employers have a good intent in engaging employees via social media, there will be less risk of litigation from its use.  Gary is also correct in his position that employees can make up anything or sue on anything, and if being afraid of litigation is the standard about whether to engage in certain conduct, employers would have a very difficult time running a business.  Gary notes also that employees are happy when he engages with them on social media, but he notes he does engage with respect, and does not want to make anyone uncomfortable.

I generally agree with Gary’s position, and employers should feel free to engage employees on social mediation as long as they understand the general rules of employee privacy issues that arise (and as noted below, this is nothing new with the development of social media).

California’s right to privacy

First off, in California, Article I, Section I of the California Constitution guarantees citizens a right of privacy:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This right to privacy carries over to the workplace, but is even more protected when the employee is conducting personal activities during non-working hours. A person’s privacy expectation in their social media posts is very low since it is posted for the general public. But one could argue that off-work conduct (which includes social media activity) is part of the employee’s privacy right recognized in the California Constitution.

Furthermore, section 96(k) of the Labor Code provides that the California Labor Commissioner may assert on behalf of employees:

Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.

Indeed, employees have successfully alleged claims that an employer’s use of off-work conduct was used in making an employment decision that violated the employee’s privacy.  For example, in Rulon-Miller v. IBM Corp. (1984) an IBM employee was terminated for an alleged conflict of interest due to her dating a manager of an IBM competitor.  IBM warned the employee to stop dating the manager of the competition, and when she protested IBM terminated her employment.  The court found that IBM violated the employee’s right to privacy in terminating her employment due to off-work conduct, and the jury awarded her $300,000.

Unreasonable intrusion into an individual’s private affairs

There is also a potential for employees to argue that it is intrusion into their private affairs.  To be unlawful conduct in California, an intrusion into someone’s privacy must be an unreasonable intrusion into one’s seclusion or private affairs that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.  A plaintiff can state a cause of action when their privacy is invaded in an offensive manner without consent, and it does not matter if the information was disclosed after the invasion.  See Shulman v. Group W Prods. Inc. (1998).  However, because an employer is following an employee’s posts on social media, it would be very difficult for an employee to establish that such an invasion occurred because the employee is posting the information publically.

So can employers use social media to follow and communicate with employees?

There is nothing illegal about employers or supervisors from following employees on social media.  The information posted by the employees is publically shared, so it would be very difficult for employees to state that the employer somehow intruded upon their privacy by following or commenting about the information posted by the employee.  However, employees do have a privacy interest in their off-work conduct and as established by the IBM case above, and employers must be careful in making employment decisions based on this information.  So is social media off limits to supervisors or companies?  Not necessarily so as Gary states.  Indeed, the IBM case above was decided in 1984, well before social media existed.  Employers, managers, and supervisors always had to manage this risk – even before social media.  Therefore, it is not per se illegal that companies follow and engage their employees on social media, as many companies are probably feeling to pressure to do so as this is becoming the standard way many people communicate.  As Gary discusses, the fact that a company is engaging its employees on social media can be a huge employee morale boost, and a way to establish that the company cares about employees and is communicating with them on a less formal basis.  Companies should approach the sensitivity of the information and privacy of employees just as they would have prior to the invention of social media.

I’ve been fielding a lot of questions from clients about California’s paid sick leave at the beginning of 2016.  There has been a lot of confusion about accrual rates and tracking paid sick leave for employees, and if the employee’s paid sick leave accrual re-sets at the beginning of the calendar year.  This week’s Friday’s Five is five reminders about California’s paid sick leave for 2016:

1.     Employers must remember to keep the two different methods of providing paid sick leave (up-front grant vs. accrual) separate when analyzing their obligations under the law. 

Many employers get confused because they examine the requirements of the law without understanding which requirements apply to the the up-front grant method or the accrual method.  Employers must keep these two different methods distinct when analyzing their obligations under the law.  For example, if employers provide the three days or 24 hours up-front to employees (i.e., the employees do not have to accrue the sick leave), then there is no need to set a cap on accrual.  This is because the law states that employers using the up-front grant do not have to carry over any unused paid sick leave to the next year.

2.     Employee’s accrual and usage is usually tracked based on the employee’s anniversary date.

Generally, the law requires that the employer must provide the employee with three days or 24 hours (whichever is greater) of paid sick leave from the employee’s hire date.  Therefore, the calendar year usually does not apply when tracking and resetting the amount of paid sick leave employees are eligible to use.

3.     Under the accrual method, employers have different options of how to set the accrual rate of paid sick leave.

The law originally required that employers provide employees with an accrual of one hour for every 30 hours worked and allow use of at least 24 hours or 3 days (whichever is greater) each year.  The law was amended in October 2015 to allow employers to use an alternative accrual method as long as it is (1) on a regular basis, and (2) the employee has no less than 24 hours or three days paid sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment, or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period.

I’ve written about the other amendments made to the law in this previous article and discussed the amendments in this video.

4.     At the time of hire, employers must provide notice to most employees about paid sick leave.

The DIR has generated a Notice to Employees that most California employers should be providing to their non-exempt employees.  Among other things, the notice sets forth information about the employer’s paid sick leave policy.

5.     Employers must review their record keeping and pay stub requirements.

The law requires that employers keep records about how much paid sick leave employees earned and used for three years.  Employers are also required to provide employees with information about how much paid sick leave the employee has available to use on their pay stub or on another writing provided to the employee at the same time the employee is paid.

Click here for a video discussing some of the other general requirements of the paid sick leave law.

I cannot believe it is already Friday, and one week done in 2016.  This Friday’s Five focuses on a few action items for employers can use to start a review of their employment policies for 2016.Happy New Year 2016

 1.      Ensure the new hire packets contain all required information for employees. 

If employers do not have a standard new hire packet, the first step in 2016 should be implementing this packet.  There are many disclosures and documents that need to be provided to employees when they are hired.  This packet should be reviewed by legal counsel as well to ensure that all required forms are included for each employee.  For example, employees earning commissions must be provided the commission agreement in a writing signed by both the employee and the employer.  See Labor Code Section 2751.

 2.      Review pay stubs to ensure they are compliant. 

The DLSE provides an example of a pay stub and the required information for an hourly employee:

Also, do not forget that with California’s paid sick leave law that took effect on July 1, 2015, employers will have additional reporting information regarding employees’ accrued paid sick leave and usage. Employers must show how many days of sick leave an employee has available on the employee’s pay stub or a document issued the same day as a paycheck.

3.      Analyze if arbitration agreements are appropriate.

Employers should understand the potential benefits and costs associated with arbitration agreements, and should review with counsel whether they might be appropriate for their workforce.

4.      Review payroll practices and ensure overtime is being paid correctly.

If non-exempt, review to ensure the appropriate overtime is being paid at the proper rate, and that all overtime is being paid for work done over eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week.

Generally, any work performed over eight hours in any workday or more than six days in any workweek requires that the employee is compensated for the overtime at not less than:

  •  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; and
  • Double the employee’s regular rate of pay 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.

Employers should review that the employee’s “regular rate of pay” used for calculating overtime includes all required payments to the employee such as non-discretionary bonuses, piecework earnings, or commissions.  The Department of Industrial Relations provides some good examples on what must be included when calculating the regular rate of pay and how to calculate the applicable overtime.

5.      Understand new laws taking effect in 2016.

Employers should learn about the new laws passed that are effective in 2016.  I’ve posted some excerpts from a webinar I recently conducted last week on a few new laws facing California employers in 2016.  I’ll be posting additional excerpts soon as well.  If you would like to be notified about future webinars or seminars I conduct, you can sign up here.

Happy New Year!  This Friday’s Five consists of five new video’s taken from a recent presentation I conducted on new employment laws facing California employers in 2016.  Wishing everyone the best in 2016.

2016 Update: California’s new equal pay protections:

2016 Update: Meal and rest break considerations:

2016 Update: Minimum wage increases state and locally:

2016 Update: Employers may cure some PAGA violations on pay stubs

2016 Update: California’s new requirements for piece rate pay employees:

If you find these updates useful, please email me (anthony [dot] zaller [at] yahoo.com) if you are interested in attending any of my future presentations or webinars on California employment law.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!  I have been enjoying the excellent skiing in the Eastern Sierras (California’s snow pack is looking great this year).  So this Mammoth Skiingweek’s Friday’s Five article is a bit shorter, but I wanted to address five issues that the holidays create in regards to wage and hour issues in California:

1.     Five things to understand about holiday pay under CA law.

2.     Five rules for drafting vacation policies the right way under California law.

3.     Spending a lot of time with family during the holidays is a given, but is there room for workplace relationships? 

4.     Holiday implications for wage and hour issues.

  The Department of Industrial Relations provides a FAQ on issues surrounding holidays.

5.     Yearly items employers should audit.

Merry Christmas!  Hope you are enjoying some time off and time with your family.

As we approach the close of 2015, employers should take the time to review their employment law policies and practices.  I’m often asked where should the process start?  Here are five areas employers can focus on to start the audit process:

1.      Employee handbooks

Employers need to ensure their policies are up to date, and a few areas that saw updates that may need attention in regards to employee handbooks are the revisions to California’s paid sick leave, the enforceability of arbitration agreements that contain class action waivers, and equal pay protections.

Employers should review new laws taking effect in 2016 to ensure compliance.

2.      Ensure compliance with minimum wage increases

California minimum wage increases to $10 per hour effective January 1, 2016.

Employers need to remember that the state minimum wage also sets the salary basis for exempt employees, and therefore the minimum salary that must be paid to exempt employees will also be increasing.

3.      Wage and hour issues

There are so many wage and hour areas that employers need to ensure compliance with, but here are few to help start the audit process:

4.      Meal and rest breaks

Even though it is widely known by employers of their obligations to provide meal and rest breaks, there is still substantial litigation over this issue.  Therefore, employers should continually review their meal and rest break policies and practices to ensure compliance with the law.  To start, here is a link to a previous article about five things California employers should not forget about meal and rest breaks.

5.      Correct information is listed on employee pay stubs and new requirements for piece-rate employees

Employers should ensure their pay stubs provided to employees comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 226.  The DLSE provides a sample of what information a compliant pay stub should list for an hourly employee, but don’t forget about the requirement to report an employee’s accrued paid sick leave.

Employers should especially conduct this review if they paid employees on a piece-rate basis.  A new law, AB 1513, adds various Labor Code sections and places new requirements on employers who pay on piece-rate basis.  The law now mandates that employers pay piece-rate employees separately for the following activities:

  • Rest breaks
  • Recovery periods (for employees who work outside)
  • Non-productive time (defined by the law)

The law requires employers to calculate the regular rate of pay for each workweek, and then pay the piece-rate employees the higher of this regular rate of pay or the applicable minimum wage for rest break time.  The law also requires employers to pay piece-rate employees for “nonproductive time” which is defined as “time under the employer’s control, exclusive of rest and recovery periods, that is not directly related to the activity being compensated on a piece-rate basis.”  The nonproductive time is required to be paid at a rate no less than the applicable minimum wage rate.  Employers paying employees on a piece rate basis should review the new obligations with an employment law attorney to ensure compliance.

To qualify as an exempt employee, 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.  Yes, this Friday’s Five post is published on a Saturday, but a holiday party obligation got in the way (it did cross my mind, but I saved my readers from the obligatory “how to throw a holiday work party and avoid litigation” article – so I figured this will make up for the late post).  Here are five general issues employers should know about the salary basis test:

1.     To qualify for a “white collar” exemption, employees must be paid at least twice the state minimum wage.

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 July 1, 2014, the minimum wage in California increased from $8.00 to $9.00 per hour.  It is set to increase again to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016.  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 July 1, 2014, in order to qualify for a white collar exemption, the employee must receive an annual salary of at least $37,440, and as of January 1, 2016, the threshold annual salary increases to at least $41,600.  This salary basis will increase with each increase in the California state minimum wage.

2.     DOL proposal to increase the salary for required to meet the salary basis test under the FLSA is just a proposal (for now).

As I have previously written, the Department of Labor announced in June 2015 that it was considering a proposal to increase the salary basis amount under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the white collar exemptions from $23,660 to $50,400.  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that this proposal is not likely to become effective (if at all) until late 2016.  Employers need to understand that the DOL’s proposal pertains to federal law.  California employers need to abide by which ever salary basis level is higher – California state law or the FLSA.  It is important to understand the difference, and keep up to date on the DOL’s proposal in 2016.

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

In a recent case, 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.     Approach with caution.

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).

Photo:  Justin Lynham

1.     It does not matter if you are a start-up, mom and pop business, or a fortune 500 company, employment laws cannot be ignored. 

While different laws do apply to larger employers, for the most part, every employer has to comply with roughly the same laws in California.  California’s paid sick leave requirement that took effect in 2015 is a good example, there is no exception for small businesses.  If the employer has one employee, the employer must offer paid sick leave in accordance with the law.  Think you are too “small” to be a target?  The penalties add up very quickly for very technical violations, such as not providing all of the required information on an employee’s pay stub.  Plus, the Labor Commissioner just received more authority in pursuing judgments against employers starting in 2016, including the ability to hold business owners personally liable for unpaid Labor Commissioner judgments.

2.     Not every employee can be exempt. 

There are many different exemptions available that “exempt” employees from certain Labor Code requirements, such as overtime pay.  However, to qualify for a “white collar” exemption, employees must meet a two factor test: (1) salary basis test and (2) duties test.  To pass the salary basis test, exempt employees must be paid the equivalent of two times the state’s minimum wage for a 40 hour week.  As of July 1, 2014, the minimum wage in California increased from $8.00 to $9.00 per hour.  It is set to increase again to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016.  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 July 1, 2014, in order to qualify for a white collar exemption, the employee must receive an annual salary of at least $37,440, and as of January 1, 2016, the threshold annual salary increases to at least $41,600.

Don’t forget, the analysis does not stop there, the employee must also pass the duties test.  Generally, this means that more than one-half of the employee’s work time must be spent engaged in exempt work.  This differs substantially from the federal test which simply requires that the “primary duty” of the employee falls within the exempt duties.

3.     Companies must be careful about vacation policies under CA law.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Zenefits, a HR software and insurance provider based in San Francisco, is dealing with potential unpaid vacation claim from its own employees.  Zenefits has raised $500 million at a $4.5 billion valuation, and has provided a new model to the insurance sales industry by providing free HR software to its users, in exchange for the opportunity to become the client’s insurance and benefits broker.  The company is offering former employees on average $5,000 to resolve a potential dispute regarding its vacation policy.  It appears from the reports that the company switched from a vacation policy that provided very specific vacation accrual rates to an unlimited vacation policy.  During the switch, however, it is reported that the company did not pay out the vacation that was accrued under the previous policy.  California law is very specific, and requires that companies pay all accrued but unused vacation upon separation from the company, and does not permit “use-it-or-lose-it” vacation policies.

4.     Employees must be paid for all wages, including all accrued but unused vacation at time of termination. 

My previous Friday’s Five article addresses the timing requirements for when wages and unused vacation must be paid to employees separating from a company.

5.     Start-up mentality of “ask for forgiveness” can cost a lot of money in California.

While an aggressive strategy may be good for creating a business, breaking into a new industry, or created a new product, the strategy is the opposite of how employers should operate in regards to complying with employment laws in California.  While it takes time, and a relatively small amount of money to come into compliance up front, this investment is much smaller than the hundreds of hours and huge costs spent defending litigation.

Photo: Shelly Prevost

The EEOC recently disclosed its fiscal year 2015 performance report.  The report is a good reminder to employers of the issues that they may likely face EEOC scrutiny.  Here are five key statistics employers should pay attention to:

1.     EEOC obtained more than $525 million in discrimination suits. 

Of this amount, the parties settled disputes for $356.6 million, and obtained $65.3 million through litigation.

2.     “Systemic” discrimination investigations and litigation.

The EEOC resolved 268 “systemic investigations” of discrimination claims prior to litigation, resulting in more than $33.5 million in settlements.  Systemic discrimination is defined by the EEOC as discrimination that “involves a pattern or practice, policy, or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company or geographic area.”  Some examples of “systemic” discrimination provided by the EEOC are discriminatory barriers in recruitment and hiring, discriminatory restricted access to management trainee programs and to high level jobs, and exclusion of qualified women from traditionally male dominated fields of work.  A list of recent cases provided on the EEOC’s website illustrates some examples: Outback Steakhouse settles $19 million suit for sex bias claims by women in a “glass ceiling” suit; Albertson’s settles $8.9 million suit alleging job bias based on race, color, and national origin.

The agency did not disclose how much it obtained in litigation, but it disclosed that it resolved 26 systemic cases.  Six of those included at least 50 plaintiffs, and 13 that included at least 20 plaintiffs.

3.      EEOC’s training programs. 

The agency claims to have reached 336,855 people through providing 3,700 educational, training and outreach evetns.  The agency’s Training Institute trained over 12,000 people at 140 events that “focused on the agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) priorities, including small businesses, vulnerable workers, underserved geographic areas and communities….”

4.     Number of charges filed with EEOC remained relatively unchanged from 2014. 

The EEOC received 89,385 in FY 2015.  This is slightly up from the 88,778 charges received by the agency in FY 2014.  This is down from the number of charges filed in 2013 (93,727 charges).

In 2015, the agency resolved 44% of its conciliations, which are mediations conducted by the EEOC to resolve employment disputes.

5.     EEOC litigation efforts.

The agency filed 142 lawsuits alleging discrimination for FY 2015.  Of the lawsuits, 100 were individual lawsuits and 42 were cases “involving multiple victims or discriminatory policies (versus discriminatory treatment), of which 16 were systemic suits.”  During 2015, the agency resolved 155 lawsuits alleging discrimination, and has 218 active cases.  Of these active cases, 48 (22%) alleged systemic discrimination and 40 (18%) were “multiple-victim cases.”

 

California employers must remember that the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing Federal discrimination laws.  California employers also need to comply with California discrimination laws, which are enforced through California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).  Wage complaints are handled through the federal Department of Labor or California’s Labor Commissioner.