On August 16, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order certifying a question regarding an important wage and hour issue to the California Supreme Court: Is time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of bags or packages voluntarily brought to work for purely personal convenience by employees compensable as “hours worked” under California law?
The question arose in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., an appeal in a wage and hour class action brought against Apple, Inc., by current and former nonexempt California retail store employees. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought compensation for time that they spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches whenever they left Apple’s retail store locations, pursuant to the company’s Employee Package and Bag Searches policy. The at-issue policy, which is similar to ones in place at many other large retailers, required that employees undergo unpaid, manager-performed bag/package checks before leaving the stores—at breaks or at the end of their shifts.
Continue reading “The Ninth Circuit Asks the California Supreme Court to Weigh in on Bag Checks”
On June 8, 2017, plaintiffs Mayra Casas and Julio Fernandez (“Plaintiffs”) filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of a $12 million settlement reached against defendant Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC (“Victoria’s Secret”) in a closely watched case challenging the legality of Victoria’s Secret’s “call-in” scheduling practices. The case, Casas v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, was pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the time the parties’ settled the case, and was one of many currently pending class action lawsuits challenging similar practices by retailers. As a result of the parties’ settlement, the ultimate question in Casas remains unanswered: Are employees who are required to call their employer to determine if they are required to show up for call-in shifts entitled to reporting time pay?
Continue reading “The Unanswered Question: Do “Call-In” Schedules Trigger California Reporting Time Pay Obligations?”
On June 7, 2017, U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is withdrawing two major pieces of informal guidance issued during the Obama administration, pertaining to joint employment and independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
The two Administrator Interpretations Letters were issued by the former head of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, David Weil. The first guidance letter, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2015-1, took an aggressive position regarding misclassification of employees as independent contractors. It stressed that the “economic realities” of worker-employer relationships were paramount—i.e., whether, as a matter of economic reality, a worker was dependent on the putative employer—and suggested that most workers should be classified as employees. Although it relied on case law, the Administrator Letter provided additional refinements and, significantly, de-emphasized consideration of “control”—a major element under most common law tests.
Continue reading “Donald Trump’s Labor Secretary Revokes Obama-Era DOL Joint Employer and Independent Contractor Guidance”
Two weeks ago, just in time for the holidays, the California Supreme Court issued its (published) decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (opinion available here). In Augustus, the Court held that California law does not permit employers to require employees to take on-duty or on-call rest breaks.
The Augustus decision will have significant impact for thousands of California employers who have employed on-duty or on-call rest breaks as part of their business operations, especially in the healthcare, security, hospitality, and retail sectors.
Continue reading “The California Supreme Court Rejects “On Duty” Rest Breaks”
Last week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1241 (“SB 1241”). The new law (available here), which takes effect on January 1, 2017, adds section 925 to the California Labor Code (“Section 925”). In general, Section 925 will prohibit employers from requiring California-based employees to enter into agreements requiring them to: (1) adjudicate claims arising in California in a non-California forum; or (2) litigate their claims under the law of another jurisdiction, unless the employee was represented by counsel. Section 925 represents a considerable limit on parties’ rights to contract and may be the end of forum-selection and choice of law provisions, currently common in employment agreements.
For years, employers based outside of California have incorporated forum-selection and/or choice-of-law provisions in agreements with their California employees. Some employers used these provisions to create company-wide uniformity among their workforce. Others used forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions to avoid some of California’s more rigid rules about restrictive covenants. Whatever the motivation, forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions have become commonplace in employment and arbitration agreements.
Continue reading “My House My Rules: California Reigns In Employers’ Use Of Forum-Selection and Choice-of-Law Clauses to Avoid California Law”
On September 14, 2016, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D – D.C. At Large) introduced the Pay Equity for All Act of 2016 (the “PEAA”) in the U.S. House of Representatives. In relevant part, the PEAA would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., to prohibit employers from asking prospective employees about their previous wages or salary histories, including benefits or other compensation. In addition to prohibiting these pre-hire inquiries, the PEAA prohibits employers from seeking out the information on their own. The PEAA prohibits employers from retaliating against any employee or applicant because the employee opposed any practice unlawful under the law or for testifying or participating in any investigation or proceeding relating to any act or practice made unlawful by the PEAA. Any “person” who violates the PEAA is subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first “offense,” which increases by $1,000 for each subsequent offense, up to $10,000. In addition, any person violating the PEAA is liable to each employee or prospective employee who is subject to a violation for special damages not to exceed $10,000 plus attorneys’ fees, as well as potential injunctive relief.
In her introductory remarks, Representative Norton explained that the purpose of the PEAA was to “help eliminate the gender and racial pay gap” and to “ensure that applicants’ salaries are based on their skills and merit, not on a potentially problematic salary history.” The bill initially was co-sponsored by Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D – CT), Jerrold Nadler (D – NY), and Jackie Speier (D – CA); subsequent co-sponsors include Representatives Gwen Moore (D – WI), John Conyers, Jr. (D – MI), Barbara Lee (D – CA), and Frederica S. Wilson (D – FL). The PEAA was immediately referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Continue reading “A Bill Prohibiting Questions About Past Compensation Introduced In Congress”