Wage/Hour Class Actions - Page 11 of 14

Don’t Labor Under New Laws — What Employers Need to Know About 2016 California Labor Laws

*Originally published by CalCPA in the January/February 2016 issue of California CPA — the original article can be found here.

Many California employers feel over-regulated—and under-appreciated. Yet, surprisingly, proposed new regulation of employers has declined. In 2015, 224 bills introduced in the California Legislature mention “employer,” compared to 574 in 2014. Most of those bills did not pass, and of the ones that did, most were not signed into law by Gov. Brown. One veto blocked a bill (AB 465) that would have made pre-dispute arbitration agreements made as a condition of employment—the kind that are in widespread use across the state—unlawful. Another veto rejected a bill (AB 676) reintroduced this year that would have penalized employers for limiting job prospects of, or discriminating against, applicants who are not currently employed.

Key elements of some of the bills that became law affecting private employers, effective Jan. 1, 2016, unless otherwise mentioned and organized by bill number, follow.

Minimum Wage Boost

As of Jan. 1, the state minimum wage for non-exempt workers will increase to $10 per hour, up from $9. This change also impacts classification of most exempt workers. In addition to strict “duties tests” for administrative, executive and professional wage and hour exemptions, a salary of at least twice the state minimum wage must be paid to meet the “salary basis test.” That increases the annualized exempt salary requirement to $41,600, up from $37,440. Also affected is the retail inside-sales exemption, which requires employees be paid at least 1.5 times the state minimum wage, and at least half of their other earnings be from commissions.

An increasing number of municipalities have increased the minimum wage for companies who employ workers in their jurisdiction. As of July 1, minimum wage at Los Angeles employers with 26 or more employees will increase to $10.50 per hour, and will increase annually up to $15 per hour by July 1, 2021. Minimum wage for employees in San Francisco increased to $12.25 from $11.05 per hour May 1, 2015, and will incrementally increase to $15 per hour by July 1, 2018. Many other cities, including Berkley, Oakland and San Diego have either enacted or have pending minimum wage laws. In addition, living wage laws may require higher minimum wages be paid as a condition of contracting with local, state or federal agencies. Employers should monitor each of the requirements to assure compliance.

Penalties for Pre-offer E-Verify Use

Employers may hire only individuals who have the right to work in the United States—either U.S. citizens or foreign citizens with authorization issued by the federal government. E-Verify, administered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA), is an internet-based system that allows employers to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.

AB 622 continues a California law trend to prevent employment discrimination of immigrants. The new law prohibits employers from using E-Verify to check the employment authorization status of employees or applicants who have not received an offer of employment. Post-offer use of E-Verify remains lawful, as does use required by federal law (such as certain federal contractors) or as a condition of receiving federal funds. In addition to other remedies that may be available, the new law establishes a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each unlawful use of the E-Verify system.

AB 622 also mandates employers provide to the affected worker—as soon as practicable—any DHS or SSA notification containing information specific to the worker’s E-Verify case or any nonconfirmation notice, indicating that the E-Verify data entered does not match federal records.

More Labor Commissioner Enforcement Powers

AB 970 expands the Labor Commissioner’s power to enforce local laws regarding overtime and minimum wage, and to issue citations and penalties for violations, except when the local entity has already issued a citation for the same violation.

Labor Code Sec. 2802 requires employers to indemnify for expenses or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties or as a result of obeying the employer’s directions. In addition to a private right of action by the employee to recover these expenditures, AB 970 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations and penalties against employers who violate Sec. 2802.

Employment Discrimination Clarified

AB 987 clarifies that it is an unlawful employment practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an employee for “requesting” an accommodation for a disability or religious belief or observance, regardless of whether the request was granted.

Employers Can Cure Some Violations to Avoid PAGA

California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) permits an employee to sue to recover civil penalties for certain alleged Labor Code violations that could otherwise be pursued by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees. Employee-side litigants have used the act to leverage penalties on a workforce-wide basis for technical Labor Code violations, even where the employee has not been damaged.

As of Oct. 2, 2015, AB 1506 allows employers the opportunity to correct itemized wage statements (i.e., paystubs) to include missing inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal employer, to avoid a PAGA action over those defects. The employer may cure the alleged violation within 33 calendar days of the postmark date of the PAGA notice it receives. The bill requires only a showing that the employer has provided fully compliant paystubs to each aggrieved employee to establish cure.

Whistleblowers’ Family Members Protected

Labor Code secs. 98.6, 1102.5 and 6310 generally prohibit an employer from discharging or taking other adverse action against any employee or applicant who has complained about unlawful discrimination, retaliation or any adverse action; engaged in whistleblowing activity; or complained about unsafe working conditions.

AB 1509 provides that an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate
against an employee because the employee is a family member of a person who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in any acts protected by these provisions. The term “employer” or “person acting on their behalf ” includes “client employers” (i.e., a business entity that obtains or is provided workers to perform labor within its usual course of business from a labor contractor) or a “controlling employer” (i.e., an employer listed in Labor Code Section 6400(b) regarding multiemployer worksites).

Piece-Rate Worker Pay Requirements

AB 1513, which adds new Labor Code Sec. 226.2 and repeals others, applies to employees who are
compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay period. This new law requires that employees be compensated for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time” separate from any piece-rate compensation as follows:

Rest and recovery periods must be compensated at a regular hourly rate that is no less than the higher of: (i) an “average hourly rate” determined by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek; or (ii) the “applicable minimum wage,” defined by the bill as “the highest of the federal, state or local minimum wage applicable to the employment.”

Certain employers, who comply with the applicable minimum wage requirement, have until April 30 to program their payroll systems to perform and record the calculation required under the average hourly rate requirement and comply with the itemized wage statement requirements (see below), so long as such employers pay piece-rate employees retroactively for all rest and recovery periods at or above the applicable minimum wage from Jan. 1–April 30, inclusive, and pay the difference between the amounts paid and the amounts that would be owed under the average hourly rate requirement, together with interest.

Other nonproductive time is that which is under the employer’s control, exclusive of rest and recovery periods, and not directly related to the activity being compensated on a piece-rate basis. That time must be compensated at an hourly rate that is no less than the applicable minimum wage. The amount of other nonproductive time may be determined either through actual records or the employer’s reasonable estimates, whether for a group of employees or for a particular employee, of other nonproductive time worked during the pay period.

Finally, in addition to the list of items required by Labor Code Sec. 226 for itemized wage statements, Sec. 226.2 requires that the statements include the:

Total hours of compensable rest and recovery periods;
Rate of compensation; and
Gross wages paid for those periods during the pay period.

Employers who do not pay an hourly rate for all hours worked in addition to piece-rate wages must also list on the itemized statements the total hours of other nonproductive time, rate of compensation for that time and gross wages paid for that time during the pay period.

Hospital Meal Period Waivers

For non-exempt employees, Labor Code Sec. 512 requires two meal periods for work periods of more than 10 hours. However, employees are allowed to waive their second meal period if the total hours worked in their shift are no more than 12. Effective Oct. 5, 2015, SB 327 made statutory the longstanding rule under Sec. 11(D) of Wage Order 5 that health care industry employees who work shifts in excess of eight total hours in a workday are permitted to waive their second meal period. The bill effectively sets aside a contrary appellate court decision.

Equal Pay Act for Substantially Similar Work

SB 358, known as the California Fair Pay Act (CFPA), subjects employers to one of the strictest and most aggressive equal pay laws in the country.

Under the CFPA, an employer is prohibited from paying employees of the opposite sex lower wage
rates for “substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions.”

Previously, the equal pay statute was more limited. It prohibited employers from paying employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. The standard permits employees to bring an unequal pay claim based on wage rates in any of their employer’s facilities and in other job categories as long as the work is substantially similar.

The employer’s defense burden has increased under the CFPA. An employer must establish that the entire wage differential is based on the reasonable application of one or more of the following:

A seniority system;
A merit system;
A system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or
A bona fide factor other than sex—such as education, training or experience.

The last factor will apply if the employer shows that the factor is not the result of a sex-based differential in compensation, is related to the position and is consistent with business necessity. An employee can defeat this defense by proving that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.

Seeking to decrease pay secrecy, the CFPA further prohibits employers from enacting rules, policies or otherwise engaging in conduct that prohibits employees from disclosing their own wages, discussing the wages of others, asking about other employees’ wages or aiding and encouraging employees to exercise rights under the CFPA. Yet, no one, including an employer, is obligated to disclose employees’ wages.

Finally, the CFPA prohibits discharge, discrimination and retaliation of employees for asserting rights under the act. The statute, as amended by the CFPA, permits a civil action seeking reinstatement, lost wages and interest, an equal amount as liquidated damages, lost benefits, other equitable relief and attorneys fees recovery. Finally, the CFPA requires that employers maintain records of employees’ “wages and rates of pay, job classifications, and other terms and conditions of employment” for a three-year period.

Wage Garnishment Restrictions

SB 501 amends, repeals and adds Sec. 706.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to wage garnishment. The new law reduces the prohibited amount of an individual judgment debtor’s weekly disposable earnings subject to levy under an earnings withholding order from exceeding the lesser of 25 percent of the individual’s weekly disposable earnings or 50 percent of the amount by which the individual’s disposable earnings for the week exceed 40 times the state minimum hourly wage, or applicable local minimum hourly wage, if higher, in effect at the time the earnings are payable.

Employee Time Off

California’s Kin Care Law allows employees to use half of their accrued sick leave to care for a “family member” (as defined). The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (Paid Sick Leave Act) SB 579, which went into effect July 1, requires certain mandatory accrual of paid sick days. The bill effectively trues-up the two statutes by defining “sick leave” as leave provided for use by the employee during an absence from employment for purposes permitted by the Paid Sick Leave Act; prohibiting an employer from denying an employee the right to use sick leave; and taking specific discriminatory action against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to use, sick leave for these purposes.

In other words, employees may use paid sick leave for their own health condition or preventative care, a family member’s health condition or preventative care, and if the employee is a victim of domestic assault, sexual violence and stalking. Further, “family member” now includes a child, regardless of age or dependency (including adopted, foster, step or legal ward), parent (biological, adoptive, foster, step, in-law or registered domestic partner’s parent), spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild or siblings.

The Family School Partnership Act applies only to employers with 25 or more employees and permits an employee—defined as a parent, guardian or grandparent having custody of a child in school (grades 1–12) or child day care facility—unpaid leave of up to 40 hours each year (and no more than eight hours in a calendar month) to participate in school activities, subject to specified conditions. SB 579 amends this act by changing its scope from “child day care facility” to “child care provider” and adding leave rights for stepparents or foster parents, or one who stands in loco parentis to a child. The new law also allows employees to take unpaid time off to enroll or reenroll their children in a school or with a licensed child care provider.

Even More Labor Commissioner Enforcement Powers

SB 588 provides the California Labor Commissioner with additional powers to enforce judgments against employers arising from the employers’ nonpayment of wages. The new law, among other things, authorizes the Labor Commissioner to use any of the existing remedies available to a judgment creditor and to act as a levying officer when enforcing a judgment pursuant to a writ of execution; and issue a notice of levy if the levy is for a deposit, credits, money or property in the possession or under the control of a bank or savings and loan association or for an account receivable or other general intangible owed to the judgment debtor by an account debtor.

If an employer fails to pay a judgment for unpaid wages within 30 days of it becoming “final” (i.e., exhaustion of appeals), the employer must stop doing business in California unless it posts bond up to $150,000 (depending on the unsatisfied portion of the judgment). And the Labor Commissioner can issue a “stop order” to suspend all business operations to enforce this new provision.

What’s Next?
Employers should consider how these new laws impact their workplaces, and then review and update their personnel practices and policies with the advice of experienced attorneys or human resource professionals.

Standards of Proof in Employment Wage and Hour Class Actions Remain a Hot Topic for U.S. Supreme Court

Last week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a donning and doffing class and collective action against Tyson Foods, Inc. (see full transcript of oral argument here) that has the potential to dramatically expand the certification of class and collective wage and hour “off-the-clock” actions.

The Fictional “Average Employee”

One of the primary issues in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, is whether the plaintiffs’ use of statistical averages in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case was appropriate to certify a federal Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and to prove liability and damages at trial. The plaintiffs relied on expert testimony to prove that a class of more than 3,000 workers at an Iowa pork processing plant were owed overtime wages for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment and walking to and from their workstations. At trial, the plaintiffs used statistical evidence of the average donning, doffing and walking times for employees, resulting in a jury verdict against Tyson Foods in excess of $5.8 million. They relied on individual time sheets and average times calculated by their expert from more than 700 videotape observations of employees putting on and taking off protective gear and walking to their workstations.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent employer-friendly class action decisions in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), Tyson Foods appealed the verdict to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It argued that the plaintiffs’ reliance on statistical evidence improperly “presume[s] that all class members are identical to a fictional ‘average’ employee,” which is contrary to the so-called “trial by formula” prohibition in Dukes and Behrend for determining classwide liability and damage.

A divided (2-1) panel of the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Tyson Foods’ positions. Based on a split in the circuits, the Supreme Court granted certification on (1) whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class action certified under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified under the FLSA, where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample; and (2) whether a class action may be certified or maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified or maintained under the FLSA, when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages.

Will Statistical Modeling Be Permitted to Show Classwide Violations Under the FLSA?

Some of the Justices, including the likely swing-vote, Justice Kennedy, appeared skeptical of Tyson Foods’ argument that the plaintiffs could not rely on statistical averages as the mechanism to demonstrate commonality and typicality among workers when there was evidence Tyson Foods did not keep accurate or adequate time records. Several Justices cited to the burden-shifting framework in off-the-clock cases established after Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co., 380 U.S. 680 (1946) (where the employer’s records are inaccurate or inadequate and the employee cannot offer convincing substitutes, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate the precise amount of work performed or to refute the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence). In addition, Justice Kennedy suggested that Tyson Foods might have waived arguments by not challenging the plaintiffs’ statistical experts at trial, by objecting to bifurcating the liability and damages phases of the trial, and by not seeking a special jury verdict for determination and apportionment of damages among class members.

On the other side, Justices Alito and Roberts questioned whether the use of averaging is appropriate when the job positions and equipment used by workers were undisputedly different among the workers included in the class, and where it was undisputed that some workers did not perform the activities in question and therefore suffered no injury. Justice Alito asked, “How can you separate the employees who were injured from the employees who were not injured” or “how much time the employees were entitled to” except in “a very slap-dash fashion?” The Chief Justice echoed this point, stating “once the jury rejects plaintiffs’ “average statistics, . . . there’s no way to tell whether everybody who’s going to get money was injured or not.”

Takeaways

The Tyson Foods case highlights the difficulties employers continue to face when determining whether their workers’ “preliminary” (time spent before the principal work begins) and “postliminary” activities (time spent after the principal work ends) are compensable in the first place under the FLSA. As Justice Alito asked at oral argument, “What do you think an employer should do about recordkeeping when the employer believes that certain activities need not be counted under the FLSA? . . . Is it supposed to keep two sets of records?” The answer, according to the DOJ’s attorney, is that “Mt. Clemens . . . make[s] clear that the employer is stuck with its mistake . . . .”

Tyson Foods also shows that despite the Court’s decisions in Dukes and Comcast, which many commentators predicted would be the death knell of employment class actions, courts continue to certify classes where the plaintiffs can muster enough evidence (including statistical “averages” through qualified experts) to overcome the presumption of individualized differences among class members. Further, while the lack of accurate time records is not an insurmountable obstacle to defeating an employee’s claim that he or she (or a group of workers) did not receive overtime for compensable time worked in excess of 40 hours, it could provide an opening under the Mt. Clemens standard for employees to take advantage of “relaxed” standards of proof (“just and reasonable inference”) to show wage violations under the FLSA, which ultimately could allow them to avoid early dismissal and get to a jury.

2015 Elections — Roundup of Employment-Related Ballot Initiatives

Local governments or voters often pass statutes or ordinances on employment-related subjects that require employers to ensure that their policies are compliant not just on a state-by-state basis, but even on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis within the same state. During this past week’s election, voters around the country considered a number of local employment-related ballot initiatives, some noteworthy examples of which are below:

Voters in Elizabethtown, New Jersey Approve Paid Sick Leave

Elizabethtown, New Jersey joins a number of other cities (including several in New Jersey) in enacting a paid sick leave ordinance. Voters approved a measure that requires employers to offer one hour of paid sick time to employees for each 30 hours worked.

Voters in Houston, Texas Reject Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

Many cities have enacted local anti-discrimination ordinances which complement or mirror anti-discrimination statutes under state and federal law. In May 2014, the Houston city council passed an ordinance that would have banned discrimination based on characteristics already protected by federal law (such as age, sex and race), as well as sexual orientation and gender identity, which are not characteristics protected by federal law. In last week’s election, Houston voters rejected the ordinance. Opponents of the ordinance had labelled it the “bathroom ordinance” and claimed that its provisions concerning transgender people would enable men who wear women’s clothes – and sexual predators – to access public women’s restrooms.

Minimum Wage Measures in Portland, Maine and Tacoma, Washington

Voters in Tacoma, Washington supported a phased-in increase to the city’s minimum wage to $12 by 2018, but rejected a more ambitious increase that would have immediately raised it to $15. Similarly, voters in Portland, Maine rejected a measure that would have increased the city’s minimum wage from $7.50 to $15 in just four years, instead sticking with a hike recently enacted by the city council that would raise it to $10.10 in 2016, $10.68 in 2017, and tie increases from 2018 forward to the Consumer Price Index.

Marijuana Initiatives in Ohio, Colorado and Michigan

The increasing trend toward marijuana decriminalization (and outright legalization) presents multiple issues for employers, including reconciling their drug-free workplace policies with medical marijuana patients’ rights, and whether or not they can punish employees for engaging in what is now deemed to be a legal activity. In Ohio, voters rejected a marijuana legalization measure that would have ended marijuana prohibition in the state. Nonetheless, most analysts believe that the rejection is not reflective of voters’ opposition to marijuana legalization per se, but rather opposition to the specifics of the ballot initiative, which would have granted an effective oligopoly on marijuana production within the state to a small handful of the initiative’s wealthy backers. In Colorado, voters approved a ballot measure that gives state lawmakers permission to spend (rather than return to state residents, marijuana growers, and recreational users) $66.1 million in taxes collected from the sale of recreational marijuana, further legitimizing the state’s prior legalization of recreational use. And voters in the Michigan municipalities of Keego Harbor and Portage approved initiatives that effectively repealed the city’s prohibition on the possession, use and transfer of up to an ounce of recreational marijuana.

Employers can expect employment-related ballot initiatives similar to those listed above in upcoming elections. For example, building upon the passing of minimum wage increases in San Francisco and Los Angeles, it is likely that in 2016 California voters will consider a measure to increase the minimum wage to $15 statewide by 2021. Multi-jurisdictional employers should keep in mind that their policies may need to be re-evaluated, sometimes on a city-by-city basis, to ensure compliance with voter or legislatively enacted local ordinances and statutes.

Summary of Key New California Laws for 2016: What Employers Should Know

Governor Brown has signed several laws impacting California employers. A summary of some of the key new laws follows. The effective date of the particular new law is indicated in the heading of the Assembly Bill (AB) and/or Senate Bill (SB). As a reminder, the minimum wage in California is increasing to $10 per hour on January 1, 2016 based on previous legislation signed by Governor Brown in 2013.

AB 622 – E-Verify System (Effective January 1, 2016)

By way of background, under U.S. law, companies are required to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. E-Verify is an internet-based system that allows employers to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. The E-Verify system is administered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the United States Social Security Administration (SSA).

In an effort to prevent discrimination in employment rather than to sanction the potential hiring and employment of persons who are not authorized for employment under federal law, AB 622 prohibits employers from using the E-Verify system to check the employment authorization status of existing employees or applicants who have not received an offer of employment, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. The new law, which is codified in new Labor Code Section 2814, does not change employers’ rights from utilizing E-Verify, in accordance with federal law, to check the employment authorization status of a person who has been offered employment.

Further to the extent, the employer receives any notification issued by the SSA or the DHS containing information specific to the employee’s E-Verify case or any tentative nonconfirmation notice, which indicates the information entered in E-Verify did not match federal records, the employer will be required to provide the notification to the affected person, as soon as practicable.

Finally, in addition to other remedies available, an employer who violates this new law may be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, and each unlawful use of the E-Verify system on an employee or applicant constitutes a separate violation.

AB 970 – Enforcement of Employee Claims by Labor Commissioner (Effective January 1, 2016)

AB 970 expands the enforcement powers of the Labor Commissioner to enforce local laws regarding overtime hours or minimum wage provisions and to issue citations and penalties for violations, except when the local entity has already issued a citation for the same violation. This bill amends Labor Code Section 558 (pertaining to overtime) and Sections 1197 and 1197.1 (pertaining to minimum wage).

This bill also amends Labor Code Section 2802 pertaining to indemnification of employees by employers for expenses or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties or as a result of obeying the employer’s directions. In addition to a private right of action by the employee under Section 2802 to recover for these expenditures, this bill now authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations and penalties against employers who fail to properly indemnify employees.

AB 987 – Employment Discrimination (Effective January 1, 2016)

AB 987 is in response to findings by the California Court of Appeal, such as Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (2013), where the Court found that a request for accommodation by an employee for a disability or religious belief or observance, without more, is not a “protected legal activity” and does not support a claim for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (codified in Government Code Section 12940 et. seq.). This bill makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an employee for “requesting” an accommodation for a disability or religious belief or observance, regardless of whether the request was granted.

AB 1506 – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Effective October 2, 2015)

AB 1506 amends Labor Code Sections 2699, 2699.3, and 2699.5 which codify California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) and took effect as of October 2, 2015.

By way of background, PAGA authorizes an allegedly aggrieved employee to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties, that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees for certain Labor Code violations. Under PAGA, an employer has the opportunity to cure certain alleged violations before a lawsuit is filed. However, there are also Labor Code violations that PAGA does not provide the employer with an opportunity to cure the alleged violation before a lawsuit is filed, such as violations under Labor Code Section 226, where an employer is required to provide an itemized wage statement (or paystub) containing very specific information, including but not limited to, wages, the inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal employer.

Due to various lawsuits (including class action lawsuits) filed against employers on technical violations of Section 226 that did not in any way cause any injury to employees, this bill provides an employer with the right to cure a violation of the requirement that an employer provide its employees with the inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal employer before an employee may bring a civil action under PAGA. The employer may cure the alleged violation within 33 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice it receives. This bill also provides that the alleged violation is deemed cured only upon a showing that the employer has provided a fully compliant paystub to each aggrieved employee and limits the employer’s right to cure with respect to alleged violations of these provisions to once in a 12-month period.

AB 1509 – Protections for Family Members (Effective January 1, 2016)

AB 1509 amends Labor Code Sections 98.6, 1102.5, 2810.3 and 6310, which generally prohibit an employer from discharging or taking any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in conduct protected by these code sections. Section 98.6 pertains to complaints of discrimination, retaliation or any adverse action made to the Labor Commissioner. Section 1102.5 pertains to complaints by whistleblowers. Section 6310 pertains to complaints about unsafe working conditions. And Section 2810.3 pertains to retaliation in alternative staffing context, such as temporary workers from staffing agencies or in the construction/contractor context.

This bill extends the protections of the foregoing provisions to an employee who is a family member of another person (i.e., where multiple family members work for the same employer) who engaged in, or was perceived to engage in, the protected conduct or made a complaint protected by these provisions. That is, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee because the employee is a family member of a person who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in any acts protected by these provisions. The term “employer” or “person acting on their behalf” includes “client employers” (i.e., a business entity, regardless of its form, that obtains or is provided workers to perform labor within its usual course of business from a labor contractor) or a “controlling employer” (i.e., an employer listed in Labor Code Section 6400(b) regarding multi-employer worksites).

The bill further amends Labor Code Section 2810.3 to exclude liability on certain client employers, such as client employers that use Public Utilities Commission-permitted third-party household goods carriers.

AB 1513 – Piece-Rate Compensation (Effective January 1, 2016) (see footnote 1)

AB 1513, which adds new Labor Code Section 226.2 and repeals others, applies to employees who are compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay period. This new law requires that employees be compensated for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time” (see footnote 2) separate from any piece-rate compensation as follows:

AB 1513, which adds new Labor Code Section 226.2 and repeals others, applies to employees who are compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay period. This new law requires that employees be compensated for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time” separate from any piece-rate compensation as follows:

Rest and Recovery Periods. Employers are to compensate their employees for rest and recovery periods at a regular hourly rate that is no less than the higher of:

(i) An “average hourly rate” determined by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods;

(ii) The “applicable minimum wage,” which is defined as “the highest of the federal, state or local minimum wage
applicable to the employment.”

For those employers who pay on a semimonthly basis, employees shall be compensated at least at the applicable minimum wage rate for the rest and recovery periods together with other wages for the payroll period during which the rest and recovery periods occurred. Any additional compensation required for those employees pursuant to the average hourly rate requirement is payable no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period.

Certain employers (see footnote 3) – who comply with the applicable minimum wage requirement – will have until April 30, 2016 to program their payroll systems to perform and record the calculation required under the average hourly rate requirement and comply with the itemized statement (or paystub) requirements (see below), so long as such employers pay piece-rate employees retroactively for all rest and recovery periods at or above the applicable minimum wage from January 1, 2016, to April 30, 2016, inclusive, and pay the difference between the amounts paid and the amounts that would be owed under the average hourly rate requirement, together with interest by no later than April 30, 2016.

Other Nonproductive Time. Employers are to compensate their employees for other nonproductive time at an hourly rate that is no less than the applicable minimum wage. The amount of other nonproductive time may be determined either through actual records or the employer’s reasonable estimates, whether for a group of employees or for a particular employee, of other nonproductive time worked during the pay period.

Further, Section 226.2 requires that additional information be added to wage statements, making compliance with wage statements more difficult. In addition to the list of items that are required by Labor Code Section 226 for itemized statements, Section 226.2 requires that the itemized statements include (a) the total hours of compensable rest and recovery periods, (b) the rate of compensation, and (c) the gross wages paid for those periods during the pay
period.

Further, those employers that do not pay an hourly rate for all hours worked in addition to piece-rate wages, then such employers must also list on the itemized statements (a) the total hours of other nonproductive time, (b) the rate of compensation for that time, and (c) the gross wages paid for that time during the pay period.

In addition, this new law provides that, until January 1, 2021, an employer has an affirmative defense to any claim or cause of action for recovery of wages, damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, or civil penalties based solely on the employer’s failure to timely pay the employee the compensation due for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time for time periods prior to, and including, December 31, 2015, if the employer complies with certain specified requirements by no later than December 15, 2016, which include: (a) making payments to each of its employees, for previously uncompensated or undercompensated rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time from July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015; (b) paying accrued interest; and (c) providing written notice to the Department of Industrial Relations of the employer’s election to make payments to its current and former employees by no later than July 1, 2016.

Finally, it appears that Section 226.2 applies to companies with a unionized workforce as Section 226.2 does not have a collective bargaining exemption.

SB 327 – Wage Orders: Meal Periods (Effective October 5, 2015)

By way of background, Labor Code Section 512 requires two meal periods for work periods of more than 10 hours. However, employees are allowed to waive their second meal period if the total hours worked in their shift is no more than 12 hours. Under Section 11(D) of Wage Order 5, however, health care industry employees who work shifts in excess of 8 total hours in a workday are permitted to waive their second meal period.

A recent appellate court decision, Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, 234 Cal.App.4th 285 (2015), held that Section 11(D) of Wage Order No. 5 is invalid to the extent that it conflicts with Labor Code Section 512 and that the California Industrial Welfare Commission exceeded its authority by creating an exception to Section 512’s meal period requirements.

Concerned that, without immediate clarification, hospitals will alter their scheduling practices as a result of uncertainties created by the Gerard decision, Governor Brown signed SB 327 on October 5, 2015 to amend Labor Code Section 516 effective immediately. Accordingly, this bill provides that the health care employee meal period waiver provisions in Wage Order 5 were valid and enforceable, and continue to be valid and enforceable.

SB 358 – Equal Pay Act (Effective January 1, 2016)

Under SB 358, known as the California Fair Pay Act, employers will be subject to one of the strictest and most aggressive equal pay laws in the country. The California Fair Pay Act is intended to increase requirements for wage equality and transparency and amends Labor Code Section 1197.5 relating to private employment. For a more thorough discussion of this new law, please click here.

SB 501 – Wage Garnishment Restrictions (Effective July 1, 2016)

SB 501 amends, repeals, and adds Section 706.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to wage garnishment. The new law reduces the prohibited amount of an individual judgment debtor’s weekly disposable earnings subject to levy under an earnings withholding order from exceeding the lesser of 25% of the individual’s weekly disposable earnings or 50% of the amount by which the individual’s disposable earnings for the week exceed 40 times the state minimum hourly wage, or applicable local minimum hourly wage, if higher, in effect at the time the earnings are payable.

SB 579 – Employee Time Off (Effective January 1, 2016)

SB 579 amends Labor Code Section 230.8, which applies to employers with 25 or more employees. Under Section 230.8, employers are prohibited 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 of unpaid time off each year for the purpose of participating in school activities, subject to specified conditions. The new law revises references to a “child day care facility” to instead refer to a “child care provider” and defines “parent” for these purposes as a parent, guardian, stepparent, foster parent, or grandparent of, or a person who stands in loco parentis to, a child, thereby extending these protections to an employee who is a stepparent or foster parent or who stands in loco parentis to a child. This new law also allows employees to take unpaid time off to enroll or reenroll their children in a school or with a licensed child care provider.

SB 579 also amends Labor Code Section 233, which applies to all employers. Under Section 233 (aka “California’s Kin Care Law”), employers are required to allow employees to use one-half of their accrued sick leave to care for a “family member” (as defined). In light of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Labor Code Section 245 et. seq.), which went into effect on July 1, 2015, this bill requires an employer to permit an employee to use sick leave for the purposes specified in the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, redefines “sick leave” as leave provided for use by the employee during an absence from employment for these purposes, and prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to use sick leave or taking specific discriminatory action against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to use, sick leave for these purposes. In other words, employees may use paid sick leave for their own health condition or preventative care; a family member’s health condition or preventative care; if the employee is a victim of domestic assault, sexual violence, and/or stalking and needs to take time off. Further, “family member” now includes: a child regardless of age or dependency (including adopted, foster, step, or legal ward); parent (biological, adoptive, foster, step, in-law, or registered domestic partner’s parent); spouse; registered domestic partner; grandparent; grandchild; or siblings.

SB 588 – Judgment Enforcement by Labor Commissioner (Effective January 1, 2016)

Among the key provisions of this new bill, SB 588 provides the California Labor Commissioner with additional means to enforce judgments against employers arising from the employers’ nonpayment of wages. The new law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to use any of the existing remedies available to a judgment creditor and to act as a levying officer when enforcing a judgment pursuant to a writ of execution. The new law also authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue a notice of levy if the levy is for a deposit, credits, money, or property in the possession or under the control of a bank or savings and loan association or for an account receivable or other general intangible owed to the judgment debtor by an account debtor.

For instance, if a final judgment against the employer remains unsatisfied after a period of 30 days after the time to appeal the judgment has expired and no appeal of the judgment is pending, the employer cannot continue to conduct business unless the employer has obtained a bond up to $150,000 (depending on the unsatisfied portion of the judgment) and has filed a copy of that bond with the Labor Commissioner. The bond shall be effective and maintained until satisfaction of all judgments for nonpayment of wages.

As a result of the foregoing new laws and amendments, employers should consult with legal counsel to ensure their policies are compliant and their employee handbooks are up to date.

_________________________________________________________________________

^1. AB 1513 also makes amendments to provisions of workers’ compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment.

^2. “Other nonproductive time” 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.

^3. These employers are defined as: those acquired by another legal entity on or after July 1, 2015, and before October 1, 2015; those who employed at least 4,700 employees in California at the time of the acquisition; those who employed at least 17,700 employees nationwide at the time of the acquisition; and those that were a publicly traded company on a national securities exchange at the time of the acquisition.

The DOL Announces Proposed Revisions to FLSA Regulations Doubling the Minimum Salary Requirement for Exempt Employees

More than 15 months after President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of Labor “to propose revisions to modernize and streamline the existing [FLSA] overtime regulations,” the Department of Labor on June 30, 2015 finally issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) detailing its proposed revisions. These proposals include:

(1) Increasing the minimum salary requirement from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to an expected $970 per week ($50,440 per year) in 2016;

(2) Increasing the minimum annual compensation requirement to qualify as a “highly-compensated” exempt worker from $100,000 to $122,148 annually;

(3) Creating a mechanism for automatically updating the minimum salary and compensation levels, by tying them to either (a) a fixed percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers or (b) changes in the CPI-U (i.e., the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers).

Note that these are proposed revisions; they are not yet law. The NPRM will be published in the Federal Register and the public will be invited to comment on the revisions for a certain period (likely 60 days). After the comment period ends, the Department of Labor (DOL) may consider the comments; possibly make further revisions to the regulations; and publish a “Final Rule” in the Federal Register with an effective date on which it becomes law. Considering this timeline, it is likely that new regulations will not become law until mid-2016 or later. Usually, however, the “Final Rule” does not differ significantly from the NPRM, and thus employers now have a preview of the regulatory landscape they will face in 2016.

The DOL was widely expected to raise the minimum salary requirement, which has not been updated since 2004. However, most predicted that the DOL would couple a more modest (but still significant) increase with changes to the various “duties tests.” This speculation was based upon remarks made by the president and the Secretary of Labor indicating a concern that too many employees, particularly retail managers, were exempt under the regulations even though they spent a large portion of their time performing non-exempt duties.

The DOL has not, however, proposed any specific revisions to the duties tests. Essentially, the DOL seems to believe that a dramatic increase in the minimum salary and compensation requirements will, standing alone, ameliorate concerns about potential misclassification, noting in the NPRM that “[a]djusting the salary level upward to account for the absence of a more rigorous duties test will ensure that the salary threshold serves as a more clear line of demarcation between employees who are entitled to overtime and those who are not, and will reduce the number of white collar employees who may be misclassified . . .”

Even though the DOL has proposed fewer revisions than expected, it is nonetheless “seeking comments” on other potential changes. For example, the DOL has reiterated the concern that “in some instances the current tests may allow exemption of employees who are performing such a disproportionate amount of nonexempt work that they are not [white collar] employees in any meaningful sense” and it is thus “seeking comments on whether the [duties] tests are working as intended.” Similarly, it seeks comments on whether to allow nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy a portion of the salary basis test. Revisions to the regulations in these areas may possibly appear in the Final Rule.

Although a Final Rule will not take effect until 2016, employers should now start evaluating their employee classification policies to ensure compliance with, at the least, the expected increase in the minimum salary requirements. Given the magnitude of the increase, it’s likely that most employers will need to transition some employees, for whom meeting the new salary basis test is not feasible, from a salary to hourly role.

Should you have questions about this alert, please contact the authors or any other member of Drinker Biddle’s Labor and Employment Group.

Worth the Fight: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Actions is Not Automatic

Conventional wisdom holds that courts reflexively grant motions for conditional certification in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective actions. As a result, some employers do not even oppose these motions. They are making a mistake. As two recent decisions demonstrate, an employer that opposes these motions has a chance to defeat them or, at least, narrow the scope of the collective.

The Allegations

Earlier this month, judges in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York issued decisions on motions for conditional certification in Mata v. Foodbridge LLC, 2015 WL 3457293 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2015), and Anjum v. J.C. Penney Co., 2015 WL 3603973 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2015). The plaintiffs in both cases were non-exempt employees asserting claims for violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law, alleging (among other things) that their employers failed to pay them overtime when they worked over 40 hours per week. In Mata, the defendants operated two restaurants and the plaintiff was a pizza counter worker. In Anjum, the defendants operated numerous department stores and the plaintiffs were former sales associates in a store in Staten Island.

The Standard

In order to obtain conditional certification, plaintiffs must establish that they and the putative collective action members are “similarly situated” with respect to an alleged violation of the FLSA. In both Mata and Anjum, the courts discussed the “lenient standard” that courts apply to this analysis, indicating that it requires only a “modest factual showing.”

The Mata Conditional Certification Motion

In Mata, the plaintiff filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action of all non-exempt employees working at the defendants’ restaurants including “cooks, line-cooks, dishwashers, food preparers, cashiers, delivery persons, and counter persons.” In support of the motion, the plaintiff only submitted his own declaration, in which he described his employment and compensation at the defendants’ restaurants and further alleged that, “through observations of and conversations with other employees, he learned that they were subject to similar violations.”

In deciding the motion, the Mata court acknowledged that a single declaration may provide enough evidence for a court to grant a motion for conditional certification. In this case, however, the court determined that “the declaration actually submitted by Plaintiff in support of his motion does not suffice.” According to the court, the plaintiff attested that he observed other employees working, but provided “no actual support demonstrating knowledge of a common scheme impacting the diverse array of employees” he sought to include. Nor did the plaintiff include sufficiently detailed descriptions of his observations of and discussions with co-workers. Thus, the court concluded that “conditional certification would be inappropriate at this juncture.”

The Anjum Conditional Certification Motion

In Anjum, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action of sales associates in all 47 of defendants’ New York State department stores. In support of the motion, the four plaintiffs and five additional opt-ins submitted declarations detailing their experiences working off-the-clock.

With regard to the declarations, the Anjum court explained that “each of the four Named Plaintiffs has personally attested to the violations they claim occurred during their employment as Sales Associates at the Staten Island Store, and they have identified by name similarly situated employees at both the Staten Island Store and the Manhattan Store, at least some of whom have since opted-in to the collective action.” The court concluded that the plaintiffs satisfied their burden to demonstrate that sales associates in the Staten Island and Manhattan stores were similarly situated. However, according to the court, the plaintiffs presented “no firsthand evidence” of violations at any other stores, relying instead on hearsay and their “belief” that the thousands of employees in the defendants’ other New York stores were subject to the same unlawful policies. Therefore, the court certified the collective action, but limited its scope to sales associates working in the Staten Island and Manhattan stores, excluding thousands of employees working in the employer’s other 45 locations.

Conclusion

Courts plainly grant more FLSA motions for conditional certification than they deny. Nonetheless, this first step in the two-step procedure that plaintiffs must follow in FLSA cases is not automatic. As courts often state, the plaintiff’s burden of proof at this stage is low, but “it is not non-existent.” Accordingly, employers should rarely, if ever, consent to conditional certification. As the Mata and Anjum cases demonstrate, employers have a real opportunity to defeat these motions or narrow the scope of the collective.