Recently, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California. The Court’s decision changes the manner in which an employer must calculate overtime for employees who earn a flat sum bonus during a single pay period. Accordingly, based on the Court’s decision, this is yet another area where the rules in California differ from the federal rules. This decision is significant because it applies retroactively subject to the applicable statute of limitations.
By way of background, both state and federal laws require that amounts awarded as bonuses be included in determining a non-exempt employee’s overtime rate, except in the case of discretionary bonuses. This means that when the employee works overtime hours and receives a non-discretionary bonus, this bonus program will increase the non-exempt employee’s hourly rate for calculating overtime.
Continue reading “Are You Correctly Calculating Overtime?”
In a long-awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, overturned the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) ruling that class action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they interfere with the right to engage in “protected activity,” which, according to the Board, includes the ability to bring class or collective actions. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-0285, 2018 WL 2292444, at *23 (U.S. May 21, 2018).
Continue reading “Justice Gorsuch Casts Deciding Vote Rejecting NLRB’s Prohibition on Class Action Waivers”
On April 30, 2018, a federal district court issued a long-anticipated ruling on Philadelphia’s salary history ban. The ban, scheduled to take effect May 23, 2017, has two parts: (1) the “Inquiry Provision,” precluding employers from inquiring about a prospective hire’s wage history; and (2) the “Reliance Provision,” prohibiting employers from relying on the wage history of a new employee in determining the employee’s pay, unless the employee “knowingly and willingly disclosed his or her wage history to the employer.”
Continue reading “Philadelphia Salary History Ban: Judge Rules that Employers Can Ask About – But Not Use – Prior Salary History”
Last week, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2018 WL 1999120 (Apr. 30, 2018) (Dynamex), the California Supreme Court upended the prevailing understanding of the independent contractor-employee distinction under California law. In a ruling that is certain to have wide-ranging repercussions for companies that rely on independent contractors, the Court declined to apply the multi-factor common law test derived from its 1989 decision in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Rel’ns, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) (Borello) to the question of whether a worker is an “employee” subject to the minimum wage and overtime protections of the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s (“IWC”) wage orders. Instead, the Court adopted a simple, three-part test that likely will expand the wage orders’ reach.
Continue reading “Relearning the ABCs: California Supreme Court Adopts New Independent Contractor Test”
The acronyms “NLRB” or “NLRA” rarely appear in articles about enforcement of private sector non-compete agreements. Until recently. Dun dun dun! (Que the “dramatic gopher video” on YouTube).
In this thirteenth article of “The Restricting Covenant” series, I discuss two cases in which the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) determined that an employer’s enforcement of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements violated Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Section 8(a) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to maintain workplace rules that would reasonably tend to chill employees in exercising their Section 7 rights to engage in or refrain from concerted activities protected under the NLRA.
Continue reading “Part 13 of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: The NLRB, NLRA and Non-Competes”
On April 11, 2018, the New York City Council passed a package of legislation referred to as the “Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act,” (“NYC Act”) which, if passed, will require covered New York City employers to, among other things, provide annual anti-sexual harassment training to employees. The legislation now awaits the signature of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York City follows on the heels of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signing the Budget Bill, which contained a new state law (“NY State Act”) requiring covered employers to provide annual anti-sexual harassment training to employees as of October 9, 2018. For a more comprehensive discussion about the NYC Act and NY State Act, please see our LaborSphere blog. Also, employers will be receiving more guidance regarding what constitutes compliant training programs as New York City’s legislation, if passed, directs the NYC Human Rights Commission to develop an online interactive module that can be used to satisfy the law’s requirements. In New York, the Commissioner of Labor and the New York State Human Rights Division are jointly compelled to create a model sexual harassment training program.
Continue reading “Managing in the #MeToo Era: Are Employers Required to Conduct Anti-Harassment Training?”