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.

Today’s Friday’s Five is a short video about five employment law considerations employers should review at the end of 2015.  As mentioned in the video, I will be conducting a webinar on December 2, 2015 for employers to understand and comply with new employment laws taking effect in 2016.  I will also discuss new case law developments from 2015 including paid sick leave and enforceability of arbitration agreements and class action waivers.  There will also be a discussion about businesses’ obligations under Proposition 65 postings at their establishments.

Registration and more information is here (http://elr.io/vtzyt2016).  Hope you can join us for the webinar.

Employers that utilize interns, or who provide training to individuals that may lead to employment run the risk of having these individuals qualify as an employee, which would require the employer to comply with Labor Code requirements such as minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and overtime pay.  The analysis is very difficult, and fact intensive, and employers should approach this issue with caution.  Once again, I cannot keep Friday’s Five to five items, but such is the nature of California.

The Division Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) take that position that in order to determine whether training time is compensable under California law, the following eleven factors would be taken into consideration:

  1. The training, even if it is at the employer’s business and includes operation of the employer’s resources, is similar to that which is given in a vocational school;
  2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees or students, not the employer;
  3. The trainees or students do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;
  4. The employer that provides the training receives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees or students and, the employer’s operations my even be impeded;
  5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to ta job at the conclusion of the training period;
  6. The employer and trainees or students understand that the trainees or students are not entitled to wages for time spent training;
  7. Any clinical training is part of an educational curriculum;
  8. The trainees or students do not receive employee benefits;
  9. The training is general, so as to qualify the trainees or students for work in any similar business, and not specifically for a job with the employer offering the program;
  10. The screening process for the program is not the same as for employment, and does not appear to be for that purpose, but involves only criteria relevant for being accepted into the program;
  11. Advertisements for the program specify clearly that the program is for training or education, not employment.  However, employers can specify that qualified graduates will be considered for employment.

The DLSE has opined is part of the analysis is that the employee does not have to be paid for voluntary attendance at training programs.  Examples the DLSE cites are English language instruction or literacy training.

Who is responsible for costs of training programs?

The DLSE takes the position that there is generally no requirement that an employer pay for training leading to licensure or the cost of licensure for an employee.  While the license may be a requirement of the employment, it is not the type of cost the employers are required to pay for under Labor Code § 2802.  The DLSE states that the most important consideration of the licensure is that it is required by the state or locality as a result of public policy:  “It is the employee who must be licensed and unless there is a specific statute which requires the employer to assume part of the cost, the cost of licensing must be borne by the employee.”  However, if an employer requires an employees to undergo training that is specific only to that employer, then the employer would usually need to bear the training costs.

I can hear the questions already, just five new laws taking effect on January 1, 2016?  No, there are many more, as I have previously written about, but here are five additional new laws employers need to understand going into 2016.

1.     Family members of whistleblower are granted protections and some employers are excluded from the joint employer liability enacted in 2015

AB 1509 – Effective January 1, 2016, this bill prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who is a family member of an employee who made a protected complaint.  The bill extends the protections to an employee who is a family member of a person who engaged in, or was perceived to engage in, the protected conduct or make a complaint protected the law.  This bill also amends Labor Code section 2810.3 to exclude certain household goods carrier employers from the joint liability imposed between the client employer and a labor contractor.

2.     Labor Commissioner Provided Increased Enforcement Authority Over Local Ordinances and the Ability to Issue Awards For Expense Reimbursement

AB 970 – Effective January 1, 2016, provides the Labor Commissioner with authority to investigate and at the request of the local government, to enforce local laws regarding overtime hours or minimum wage provisions.  The Labor Commissioner has authority to issue citations and penalties for violations, but cannot issue violations if the local entity has already issued a citation for the same violation.  The bill also authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce Labor Code section 2802 which requires employers to pay for business related costs that the employee directly incurs in discharging their duties for the employer.

 3.     Labor Commissioner Provided Increased Judgment Collection Authority

SB 588 – Amends the Labor Code to provide the Labor Commissioner many more rights in collecting judgments against employers who are found liable for unpaid wages.  The Labor Commissioner has authority to issue a lien against on an employer’s property for the amount of the judgment.  Also, the law also imposes personal liability for employers in adding Labor Code section 98.8(f):

 Any person who is noticed with a levy pursuant to this section and who fails or refuses to surrender any credits, money, or property or pay any debts owed to the judgment debtor shall be liable in his or her own person or estate to the Labor Commissioner in an amount equal to the value of the credits, money, or other property or in the amount of the levy, up to the amount specified in the levy.

Also, if an employer has a judgment entered against it, and it is not paid within 30 days after the time to appeal the judgment, the employer is required to obtain a bond in order to continue to do business in California. Effective January 1, 2016

 4.     Employee’s Permitted Time Off From Work Expanded

SB 579 – Existing law prohibits an employer who employs 25 or more employees working at the same location from discharging or discriminating against an employee who is a parent, guardian, or grandparent having custody of a child in a licensed child day care facility or in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for taking off up to 40 hours each year for the purpose of participating in school activities, subject to specified conditions.  The law is amended to provide these protections for employees under a broader “child care provider”, and applies these protections to employees who are a stepparent, foster parent, or who stands in loco parentis to a child.

The bill also amends California’s Kin Care law set forth in Labor Code section 233 to require employers to allow employees to use “an amount not less than the sick leave that would be accrued during six months” for family members as defined in the Healthy Workplaces, Heathy Family Act of 2014, otherwise known as California’s paid sick leave law.  The Kin Care law is amended under this bill to provide that employers must allow employees to use up to one-half of their sick leave to attend to victims of domestic violence or the diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, the employee or the employee’s family member.  Family member definition is broadened from the existing definition under the law (a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner) to also include grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings.  Effective January 1, 2016.

  5.     Limits Placed on Employer’s Use of E-Verify

AB 622 – Effective January 1, 2016, this bill adds Labor Code section 2814 which expands the definition of an unlawful employment practice to include an employer or any other person or entity using the E-Verify system when not required by federal law to check the employment authorization status of an existing employee or an applicant who has not received an offer of employment, as required by federal law, or as a condition of receiving federal funds. The bill also requires an employer that uses the E-Verify system to provide to the affected employee any notification issued by the Social Security Administration or the United States Department of Homeland Security containing information specific to the employee’s E-Verify case or any tentative nonconfirmation notice “as soon as practicable.”  The bill provides for a civil penalty of $10,000 for an employer for each violation of its provisions.

It is a good time to review employee policies and handbooks to ensure they are compliant with the new requirements.

More and more employers are moving to electronic on-boarding to minimize the expenses and reliability issues in relying on paper.  Employers are also moving toward issuing wage statements electronically to employees.  Unfortunately, there is very little regulatory guidance as to the requirements that employers must meet when issuing electronic wage statements.  Indeed, the Labor Code section that pertains to the information required to be placed on wage statements, Labor Code section 226, is completely silent in regards to whether employer can issue the statements electronically and only sets out that employers must provide employees a wage statement as “a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages.” I’ve written previously about what information is required to be listed on the pay stub.  This Friday’s Five includes five requirements, plus a “bonus” sixth requirement (I knew keeping these articles limited to five items in California would be a continual battle).

California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has issued an opinion letter on the issue to provide some guidance (but employer must understand that the DLSE’s opinion is not binding legal authority, so caution must be used when relying on the DLSE’s opinion letters).

In the opinion letter authorizing electronic distribution of wage statements, the DLSE provides:

The Division in recent years has sought to harmonize the “detachable part of the check” provision and the “accurate itemized statement in writing” provision of Labor Code section 226(a) by allowing for electronic wage statements so long as each employee retains the right to elect to receive a written paper stub or record and that those who are provided with electronic wage statements retain the ability to easily access the information and convert the electronic statements into hard copies at no expense to the employee.

The DLSE approved electronic wage statements as long as the employer incorporated the following features:

  1. An employee may elect to receive paper wage statements at any time;
  2. The wage statements will contain all information required under Labor Code section 226(a) and will be available on a secure website no later than pay day;
  3. Access to the website will be controlled by unique employee identification numbers and confidential personal identification numbers (PINs). The website will be protected by a firewall and is expected to be  available at all times with the exception of downtime caused by system errors or maintenance requirements;
  4. Employees will be able to access their records through their own personal computers or by company provided computers. Computer terminals will be available to all employees for accessing these records at work.
  5. Employees will be able to print copies of their electronic wage statements at work on printers that are in close proximity to the computer or computer terminal. There will be no charge to the employee for accessing their records or printing them out. Employees may also access their records over the internet and save it electronically and/or print it on their own printer.
  6. Wage statements will be maintained electronically for at least three years and will continue to be available to active employees for that entire time. Former employees will be provided paper copies at no charge upon request.

As for the sixth point above, employers need to understand that the statute of limitations for many wage and hour class actions in California can extend back to four years under Business and Professions Code section 17200, and therefore should consider keeping wage statements and other documentation required to defend against claims going back the previous four years.

Also, employers should note that California passed a law in October 2015 providing employers to cure certain wage statement violations and minimize penalties if they take certain steps to fix the problem and inform the impacted employees within a very short period of time.