Pascal Benyamini, Author at Laborsphere

Amendments to California’s New Paid Sick Leave Law

As California employers, and those non-California employers with employees in California, know by now, as of July 1, 2015, such employers were required to provide paid sick leave to any employee who works 30 days or more within a year under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (the “HWHFA”).

The HWHFA provides, among other things, that eligible employees are entitled to paid sick days for prescribed purposes to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked, or alternatively, be provided at least 3 days or 24 hours on a lump sum method. The accrual rate method imposed by the HWHFA created several challenges for employers who were already providing paid sick leave, albeit under a different accrual method, such as per pay period, per month, per week etc. To provide some flexibility to employers in complying with the HWHFA and provide further clarifications to the HWHFA, on July 13, 2015, Governor Brown signed into law AB 304 to amend the HWHFA. The amendments are effective immediately and a summary of its key provisions are as follows:

1. An employer is now able to provide for employee sick leave accrual on a basis other than one hour for each 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis and the employee will have 24 hours of accrued sick leave available by the 120th calendar day of employment, each calendar year, or each 12-month period. This means that employers no longer have the obligation to track actual hours worked (i.e., one hour for each 30 hours worked), on the condition that the employee accrues 24 hours of leave within the first 4 months of employment.

2. An employer is able to keep their pre-January 1, 2015 paid sick leave and/or paid time off (PTO) policies as long as:

a. these policies existed prior to January 1, 2015;

b. these policies provide for time off for the same purposes as specified in the HWHFA (including carry-over and use requirements);

c. these policies continue to provide an employee paid sick leave and/or PTO on an accrual and on a regular basis so that an employee, (including an employee hired into that class after January 1, 2015):

(i) has no less than one day (or 8 hours) of accrued paid sick leave or PTO within 3 months of each year of employment of each calendar year, or each 12-month period; and

(ii) was eligible to earn at least 3 days (or 24 hours) of paid sick leave or PTO within 9 months of each year of employment.

3. If an employer modifies the accrual method used in the policy it had in place prior to January 1, 2015, the employer must comply with the one hour for each 30 hours worked accrual method, or alternatively, provide for the lump sum method.

4. The amendments provide for a new method for calculating the rate of pay:

a. For non-exempt employees with different hourly rates, an employer now has an option on how to pay sick days. Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated using either of the following two options:

(i) in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek; or

(ii) by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.

b. For exempt employees, paid sick time must be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time.

5. An employee must work for the same employer for at least 30 days in California in order to qualify for paid sick leave.

6. Employers who provide unlimited sick leave to their employees can satisfy notice requirements by indicating “unlimited” on the employee’s itemized wage statement.

7. The provisions of the original text of the HWHFA required an employer to reinstate accrued paid sick days to returning employees within one year of termination, resignation, or separation from employment. This requirement is unchanged by the amendments. However, if an employer paid out accrued PTO to an employee upon termination, resignation, or separation from employment, an employer is not required to reinstate accrued PTO if the employee is rehired within one year.

8. An employer no longer has the obligation to inquire into or record the purposes for which an employee uses sick leave or paid time off. However, as provided under the original text of the HWHFA, an employer is still required to keep records for three years documenting the hours worked and paid sick days accrued and used by an employee and to make those records available to the Labor Commissioner upon request.

9. The original text of the HWHFA contained an exemption for employees in the construction industry covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement (which met certain requirements). The HWHFA previously defined “employee in the construction” to mean an employee performing onsite work associated with construction, including work involving alteration, demolition, building, excavation, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement, repair work …”. (Emphasis added). The amendments removed the term “onsite”, which now broadens the exemption for employees in the construction industry because the focus is no longer on where the work is performed but rather on the work that employee is assigned to perform.

10. For employers governed by Wage Orders 11 (Broadcasting Industry) and 12 (Motion Picture Industry), the amendments delay to January 21, 2016 the requirements that these covered employers provide to their employees written notice setting forth the amount of paid sick leave and/or PTO available on each wage statement or other document on each pay date.

While most of the provisions of the amendments are welcomed news to employers because the amendments provide some flexibility and much needed clarifications, the amendments may perhaps be a little too late especially for those employers who expended significant resources to modify their PTO policies to be compliant as of July 1, 2015.

Non-compliance with the HWHFA and its amendments carry significant liabilities, and as such, employers should consult with legal counsel to ensure their paid sick leave and/or PTO policies are compliant.

San Francisco’s Retail Workers Bill of Rights Has Passed: Are you ready?

Operative July 3, 2015, companies located in San Francisco who are “Formula Retail Establishments” must comply with additional wage and hour requirements under the Retail Workers Bill of Rights (a combination of two ordinances, Ordinance 236-14 and Ordinance 241-14), the country’s first-ever such legislation.

Supporters claim that this new law is intended to improve life for retail employees which, according to some accounts, include more than 40,000 workers at 1,250 locations in the City of San Francisco. In passing the bill, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors found that Formula Retail Establishments are a major employment base and stated that the City has a strong interest in ensuring that jobs at these establishments allow employees to meet their basic needs and achieve economic security. An overview of this onerous and extensive legislation follows.

Formula Retail Establishments

The new law applies to companies who employ 20 or more employees in 20 or more locations worldwide and who operate a Formula Retail Establishment in San Francisco. Other than the number of locations, “Formula Retail Establishments” borrow from the definition of “Formula Retail Use” in The San Francisco Planning Code and generally have standardized merchandise, facade, worker apparel, interior design, signage and/or trademarks. Of course retail stores are included, but so are many businesses that one would not commonly think of as retailers. For example, hotels, restaurants, bars, movie theatres, certain financial institutions, and “Property Services Contractors” such as janitorial and/or security services contractors. For a full listing, click here.

Part-Time Employee Preferences and Retention After Ownership Change

Under this new law, employers are generally required to: (a) offer additional hours of work to current part-time employees before hiring new employees or subcontractors; and (b) retain employees (i.e., by the successor employer) for 90 days upon change in ownership control of the business.

Initial Estimate of Minimum Hours

Prior to the start of employment, employers must provide new employees with a good faith estimate in writing of the employee’s expected minimum number of scheduled shifts per month, and the days and hours of those shifts. The estimate must not include on-call shifts. This is a non-binding estimate. It is not a contractual offer.

Two Weeks’ Notice of Work Schedules & Predictability Pay

Employers must give employees at least two weeks’ advance notice of employees’ work schedules. Changes on less notice requires employers to issue additional “predictability pay” for each previously scheduled shift that the employer moves to another date or time or cancels, or each previously unscheduled shift that the Employer requires the employee to come into work:

With less than seven days’ notice but 24 hours or more notice to the employee, one hour of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate
With less than 24 hours’ notice to the employee, two hours of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate for each shift of four hours or less
With less than 24 hours’ notice to the employee, four hours of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate for each shift of more than four hours

There are exceptions to predictability pay requirements, such as an employer request that an employee work overtime or fill in for another employee who is out due to sickness or discipline.

Pay for On-Call Shifts

Employers must provide employees with the following compensation for each on-call shift for which the employee is required to be available but is not called in to work:

Two hours of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate for each on-call shift of four hours or less
Four hours of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate for each on-call shift of more than four hours

Equal Treatment to Part-Time Employees

Employers must generally provide part-time employees with equal treatment in the hourly wage, access to pro-rated time off, and eligibility for promotions.

Impact of Non-Compliance

The San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce and coordinate enforcement of this new law, including the investigation of any possible violations, and order any appropriate relief, including, but not limited to, requiring an employer to offer additional hours of work to part-time employees, reinstatement, penalties, payment of lost wages and the payment of an additional sum as an administrative penalty that does not exceed the amount of the award for lost wages. Further, to compensate the City for the costs of investigating and remedying the violation, the OLSE may also order the employer to pay the City’s enforcement costs.

Conclusion

While this new law will take effect in January 2015, it does not become operative until July 3, 2015. As such, employers affected by the Retail Workers Bill of Rights have some time to determine how to best comply. This is an opportune time to review with counsel your employment and hiring practices, including the manner in which your company schedules employee shifts and changes them to ensure compliance by July 2015.

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

Proposed California Paid Sick Leave Law Will Require Employers to Provide Paid Sick Leave to Employees

Are you a California employer currently providing paid sick leave to your employees? You may soon have to! California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) recently introduced legislation (Bill AB1522) approved by the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee requiring employers in the State of California to provide their employees with paid sick leave.

This bill would enact the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to provide, among other things, that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. And employers would be subject to statutory penalties as well as lawsuits, including the recovery of attorneys fees by the aggrieved employee against employers, for alleged violations.

It is important to note that this type of bill is not new in California, as the San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance became effective on February 5, 2007 and all employers must provide paid sick leave to each employee — including temporary and part-time employees — who performs work in San Francisco.

The California Chamber of Commerce as well as other employer groups are opposed to this bill and view it as a job killer.

Stay tuned….

Are You Ready For Your Company’s Holiday Party?

Many companies start planning their holiday party now. Employers need to know that an employer can be held liable for accidents and injuries caused by their employees who over indulge themselves with alcohol at the party, even if the employee initially made it home safely! You read that correctly. The California Court of Appeal, in Purton v. Marriott International, Inc., recently held that the company was potentially liable for a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by one of its employees who had attended the company’s hosted party. While the employee arrived home safely, the employee left about 20 minutes later to drive another co-worker home. The co-worker was also intoxicated. During this trip the employee struck another car, killing its driver. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the employer’s potential liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior ended when the employee arrived home.

The court of appeal reversed and held that an employer may be found liable for its employee’s tortious conduct “as long as the proximate cause of the injury occurred within the scope of employment. It is irrelevant that foreseeable effects of the employee’s negligent conduct occurred at a time the employee was no longer acting within the scope of his or her employment.” The court explained that a jury could conclude that the proximate cause of the injury, i.e., the employee’s alcohol consumption, and the negligent conduct, i.e., the car accident, occurred within the scope of his employment. The court further found that the going and coming rule, which generally exempts an employer from liability for the torts of its employees committed while going to or coming home from their work, was an “analytical distraction” because the “thrust of [plaintiff’s] claim for vicarious liability was that [the employee] was an `instrumentality of danger’ because of what had happened to her at work.” As such, the court focused on the “act on which vicarious liability is based and not on when the act results in injury.” The court also stated that the record presented sufficient evidence for a finding that the employee in question breached a duty of due care he owed to the public once he became intoxicated and that the employer “created the risk of harm at its party by allowing an employee to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication.”

This case certainly gives the definition of “within the course and scope of employment” a broader meaning. That said, the moral of the story: (1) don’t drink and drive; (2) don’t let your employees do so either; and (3) limit your employees’ consumption of alcohol at company events.

Are Partners Protected by the Provisions of FEHA and/or Title VII?

According to the California Court of Appeal, a partner in a partnership is protected under the provisions of the California Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”) if the partner complains that the partnership is retaliating against the partner because the partner complained about unlawful discrimination or harassment by the partnership against employees of the partnership. In Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, the California Court of Appeal drew a distinction between a partner alleging discrimination, harassment or retaliation by the partnership against the partner versus the partner complaining that the partnership is retaliating against the partner because the partner complained about unlawful discrimination or harassment by the partnership against employees of the partnership. Say that again?

Here’s what happened in the Fitzsimons case. The plaintiff (a woman partner in the medical practice) claimed that she was retaliated against for reporting that certain male officers and agents of the partnership had sexually harassed female employees. So, the issue was not whether the plaintiff could sue the partnership for sexual harassment against herself as an employee, but whether plaintiff could sue the partnership as a non-employee based on retaliation for complaining that employees of the partnership were sexually harassed. The Court held that under the FEHA, the partner can maintain such an action, even though the partner is not deemed an employee of the partnership.

The Court drew a distinction between the provisions of Title VII and the FEHA by highlighting that Title VII and the FEHA differ significantly. The Court explained that Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees or applicants for employment, whereas the FEHA prohibits employers from retaliating against any person who opposes or challenges unlawful employment practices, such as discrimination or harassment. In Fitzsimons, the plaintiff was regarded as “any person” who opposed harassment of female employees by the officers and agents of the partnership.

Moral of the story: just because a partner is not regarded as an employee of the partnership, the partner still can sue the partnership for retaliation under the FEHA. The case is attached here: Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group.

How ICE Can Freeze Your Business Operations!

ICE, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was formed in 2003 “as part of the federal government’s response to the 9/11 attacks and its mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs laws.” With an annual budget of more than $5 billion and more than 19,000 employees in over 400 offices in the U.S. and around the world, ICE is the largest investigative agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security. ICE may conduct raids or sweeps at a particular place of business. ICE can also send Notices of Inspections to employers to alert them that it will be inspecting their I-9s and hiring records to determine whether or not they are complying with employment eligibility verification laws and regulations. ICE’s increased focus is on holding employers accountable for their hiring practices and their efforts to ensure a legal workforce. ICE also seeks to ensure that employers are compliant with I-9 forms and hiring records.

In the event of audits or raids, employers’ non-compliance may result in civil penalties and lay the groundwork for criminal prosecution of employers who have knowingly violated the law. According to ICE’s Assistant Secretary John Morton, “ICE is focused on finding and penalizing employers who believe they can unfairly get ahead by cultivating illegal workplaces.” He added that ICE is “increasing criminal and civil enforcement of immigration-related employment laws and imposing smart, tough employer sanctions to even the playing field for employers who play by the rules.”

While the presence of illegal aliens at a business does not necessarily mean the employer is responsible, consulting with legal counsel is paramount to limiting your potential exposure in your hiring practices.