California Archives - Page 16 of 21

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….

Just Don’t Ask: With The Fair Chance Ordinance, San Francisco Joins A Growing Number Of Jurisdictions That Restrict Employers’ Pre-Hire Inquiries About Applicants’ Criminal Histories

In February 2014, San Francisco joined the growing number of jurisdictions that have enacted so-called “ban the box” laws. Like many of its counterparts, San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance, which will become effective in August 2014, significantly limits employers’ abilities to inquire about and/or consider applicants’ and employees’ criminal records when making employment decisions.

Pursuant to the Ordinance, San Francisco employers are prohibited from asking about applicants’ criminal histories until either (a) after the applicants’ first live interview, or (b) after a conditional offer of employment has been extended. However, the Ordinance places considerable limits on obtaining and using any information obtained. Specifically, employers are prohibited from inquiring about or taking any adverse action against applicants or current employees based on: (a) any arrests not leading to a conviction, except for some unresolved (i.e., pending) arrests; (b) participation in or completion of a diversion or deferral of judgment program; (c) convictions that have been judicially dismissed, expunged, voided, invalidated or otherwise rendered inoperative; (d) convictions or other determinations of the juvenile justice system; (e) convictions older than seven years; and/or (f) information pertaining to any offense other than a felony or misdemeanor (e.g., infractions). Before making any inquiry about an applicant’s conviction history, the Ordinance requires that the employer provide the applicant in question with a notice promulgated by the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (“OLSE”).

The Ordinance also requires that employers engage in an individualized assessment and consider only directly-related convictions when making decisions about applicants. Employers also must consider the amount of time that has elapsed since the applicants’ convictions and any evidence of rehabilitation, inaccuracy of the applicants’ records, and/or other mitigating factors. Before making any adverse decision, employers are required to provide the employee with a written notice of their intention to make such a decision, detailing the reasons for the decision. In addition, if any background report was considered by the employer, the employer must also provide that to the applicant. Any affected candidate has seven days following receipt of the employer’s notice to submit evidence regarding: (i) the inaccuracy of the criminal history information; or (ii) rehabilitation or mitigating factors. If the employer receives such information from an applicant, it must delay its intended action and consider the additional information.

In addition to the above restrictions, the Ordinance contains strict anti-retaliation/interference provisions. The Ordinance also requires that employers post a notice of applicants’ and employees’ rights in a conspicuous place at every workplace, job site, or other location in San Francisco that is under the employer’s control and that is frequently visited by employees or applicants. In addition, any job postings must contain a notice that the employer will comply with the Ordinance’s requirements.

Though San Francisco’s ordinance is particularly stringent, the City is by no means alone in banning employers from inquiries about applicants’ criminal pasts: dozens of cities and several other states – including Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island – have enacted similar “ban the box” legislation. Moreover, there are a growing number of organizations pushing for the enactment of similar laws and ordinances across the country.

Employers in jurisdictions that have already enacted “ban the box” laws should ensure that they avoid any impermissible inquiries. Employers in locations that have not yet been affected should closely monitor developments in their jurisdictions to avoid any exposure.

Taylor v. Nabors Drilling and California’s SB 292 Clarify that Sexual Harassment Need Not Be Motivated by Sexual Desire

On January 13, 2014, the California Court of Appeal decided in Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P., 222 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2014), that a person may maintain an action for sexual harassment when subjected to verbal attacks on his or her heterosexual identity, regardless of whether the attacks were motivated by sexual desire. This ruling came soon after the implementation of SB 292, which became effective in California on January 1, 2014. This bill revised the definition of sexual harassment under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to specify that sexually harassing conduct “need not be motivated by sexual desire.” As a result, to prove harassment “because of sex,” plaintiffs need only show that there was evidence that gender was a substantial factor in the harassment.

Both Taylor and SB 292 explicitly reject the view adopted by the California Court of Appeal in Kelley v. Conco Companies, 196 Cal. App. 4th 191 (2011), which held that a plaintiff failed to prove sexual intent because there was no evidence that heterosexual harassers sexually desired the male plaintiff. The court made this decision despite the fact that the defendant and coworkers in Kelley used “graphic, vulgar, and sexually explicit” language to express sexual interest and solicit sexual activity from the plaintiff.

Taylor and SB 292 resolve any ambiguity created by the Kelley decision, and make clear that a showing of sexual desire is not an essential element of a claim of sexual harassment—thereby affirming and solidifying California authority published before Kelley. Thus, it is clear that a plaintiff may establish an inference that an alleged harasser’s conduct is sexual by producing: (1) evidence of the alleged harasser’s sexual desire; (2) evidence that the alleged harasser is motivated by general hostility towards the particular gender of which plaintiff is a member; or (3) comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace.

These developments in California sexual harassment law have important consequences for employers. To avoid a greater occurrence of suits, employers must now scrutinize offensive comments by same-sex employees objectively, based on the content of the remarks, not the intent of the speaker. Employers can minimize liability through adequate complaint protocols, instituting zero tolerance policies, and encouraging employees to report any inappropriate workplace behaviors. These actions may prevent alleged harassing conduct from being deemed sufficiently severe or pervasive. Employers should also stress that bullying, such as the use of homophobic epithets to heterosexual employees (Taylor), subjects the employer to liability. Accordingly, employers should update their policies and handbooks to reflect the change, as well as provide employees relevant information and a copy of the updated policy. Lastly, employers may consider additional training for supervisors or issuing a memo, advising them of SB 292 and their responsibilities to administer policies in conformity with the new law.

The Impact of 409A on Severance Payments

The Issue: An employment agreement conditions severance payments to an executive on her signing a release. Can this create a tax problem for the executive under the non-qualified deferred compensation rules of the Internal Revenue Code?

The Solution: Yes, unless the provisions of the employment agreement are properly drafted and the parties comply with the terms of the agreement.

Analysis: Code Section 409A (409A) governs the terms and operation of “non-qualified deferred compensation plans” and imposes restrictions on the reasons for and timing of deferred payments. Neither the employee nor the employer may accelerate or defer the receipt of deferred compensation (with some exceptions not applicable here).

Failure to comply with 409A leads to serious tax consequences for the executive, including acceleration of income and a 20% tax penalty. California imposes its own 5% tax penalty for failure to comply with 409A.

Termination of employment is a permissible payment event. If the employment agreement provides that severance will be paid within 2-1/2 months after termination with no conditions, the payment isn’t subject to 409A. If the agreement provides for a series of payments equal to not more than twice the executive’s pay (or the qualified plan compensation limit, currently $260,000) and they are to be paid within two years after termination, there is no problem.

The concern with conditioning severance pay on an executive signing a release is that if there is no time limit on when the release must be signed, the employee can affect the timing of payment by either signing the release quickly or delaying to a later date. This violates the strict requirements of 409A. It is important to recognize that it is not the employee’s action or inaction that is the problem; it is the provision in the employment agreement.

The remedy is simple. The employment agreement must specify (or be amended to specify) a fixed payment date after termination of employment (either 60 or 90 days) or a specified period no longer than 90 days when the severance payment will be made or commence (with special rules if the payment period can go into another tax
year). If the executive fails to sign and return the release by the commencement date, the severance must be forfeited.

Employers should tread carefully when dealing with the complicated requirements of 409A. If an employment agreement provides for any post-termination payment, it should be reviewed for compliance with 409A.

Special Rules Apply To Documents With Employee Protected Health Information

Editor’s Note: The following post by Heather Abrigo, Counsel in the Los Angeles office, appears in the latest issue of the California HR Newsletter.

Special Rules Apply To Documents With Employee Protected Health Information

The Issue: Must an employer safeguard documents containing employee protected health information (PHI) in any special way?

The Solution: Yes. An employer must adopt privacy policies or procedures related to employee PHI. These policies should include controls over who has access to the documents (physically and electronically).

Analysis: Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), employers must prevent the unauthorized disclosure of protected health information (PHI). This will primarily affect those employers that sponsor self-insured health plans, cafeteria plans with a flexible health spending account component, offer on-site health clinics, and/or that offer significant hands-on help to employees in connection with their group health plans (e.g., handling benefit claims).

Employers subject to the HIPAA privacy rules should have written privacy procedures in effect that safeguard all documents with PHI. This includes the administration of the PHI (e.g., who needs access to such information to administer the health plan, entering into business associate agreements with any third-parties who might handle, and training employees who may handle, PHI as part of their duties). The written privacy procedures should also address other safeguards of PHI (whether in paper or electronic form) including physical safeguards (e.g., workstation use/security) as well as technical safeguards (e.g., person authentication and transmission security).

If you are unsure whether these rules apply and you sponsor any of the aforementioned plans, please contact your benefits lawyer.

Risk Management: What to Include In A Personnel File

Editor’s Note: The following post by Los Angeles Partner Pascal Benyamini appears in the latest issue of the California HR Newsletter. To sign-up to receive the California HR Newsletter click here.

Risk Management: What to Include In A Personnel File

By: Pascal Benyamini

The Issue: Can employers reduce risks of potential claims of discrimination and retaliation by employees through thoughtful management of personnel files?

The Solution: Yes. One of the many steps that employers can take to reduce risk of litigation is to ensure that documents that do not belong in a personnel file are kept in separate files and locked up.

Analysis: Discrimination claims come in many forms, including, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, or pregnancy. One of the most effective ways to reduce legitimate employment discrimination cases is for employers to expend the necessary resources to properly train their workforce, starting with management level employees. As part of that training, employers should be mindful of the types of documents that should be in personnel files and those that should not, but should be maintained separately. The rule of thumb is that employers should keep documents containing subjective information separate. This is because when managers make personnel decisions about an employee and the file contains information about protected characteristics of that employee, such as race, age, medical condition etc., the file may serve as circumstantial evidence in a discrimination claim against the employer.

Documents That Belong In A Personnel File: Any objective information related to the hiring, promotion, demotion, compensation, discipline or discharge of an employee, including, but not limited to: application; resume; offer letter; performance reviews; disciplinary notices; termination letter; resignation letter; compensation and deduction information; acknowledgment of receipt of handbooks; attendance records / receipt of vacation and personal leaves; change in name, address, telephone number; beneficiary regarding insurance provided by company; emergency contact information; and training records.

Documents That Do Not Belong In A Personnel File But Kept Separate: Any subjective information regarding the employee, including, but not limited to: subjective notes about the employee during the interview process, on application, resume etc.; reference checks or letters of reference; documents pertaining to criminal or
other investigation of the employee; credit reports; immigration and naturalization information (I-9 Forms); medical files of any records informing of a medical condition, including drug test results; wage garnishments; any
photos of employee, including photo of driver’s license, passport etc.; and EEO forms.

The file should not be available to supervisors who have no legitimate need for it.

Adhering to these simple guidelines will help the company reduce unnecessary claims.