Wage and Hour Defense Blog

On Election Day 2024, voters in six states weighed in on ballot initiatives that addressed several employment law topics. Among these were propositions to change state minimum wages and mandate paid sick leave for workers. The outcomes were mixed.

Alaska

In Alaska, voters passed by a narrow margin Ballot Measure 1, which will increase the state’s minimum wage from the current rate of $11.73 per hour to $13.00 per hour on July 1, 2025. It will subsequently rise to $14.00 per hour on July 1, 2026, and $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2027. Increases thereafter will be calculated based on inflation.

Ballot Measure 1 included other provisions affecting workplaces. Its passage means that many employers will need to comply with new paid sick leave requirements. Starting July 1, 2025, eligible employees will accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and will be allowed to use at least 40 and up to 56 hours of accrued paid sick leave annually, depending on how many employees work for their employer.

A third portion of Ballot Measure 1, also effective July 1, 2025, prohibits so-called “captive audience” meetings. The new law will prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who refuse to attend company meetings about political or religious topics.

On August 1, 2024, in Turrieta v. Lyft et al., the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action does not have a right to intervene -- or to object to or vacate a judgment -- in a separate PAGA action involving overlapping claims.

The Court’s conclusion resolves an issue that is not uncommon in PAGA litigation where a resolution is reached in one of several separate PAGA lawsuits filed against the same employer. And it will make it easier for parties to resolve PAGA actions without fear that settlements will be toppled by other employees or their lawyers. 

On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Castellanos et al., v. State of California and Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, et al., upholding the 2020 voter initiative known as Proposition 22 the allows certain gig economy companies to classify drivers as independent contractors.

In 2019, California Assembly Bill 5, also known as AB5, expanded the landmark California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, and made the "ABC" test law. 

Much has been made about the recent, hurried legislation to amend the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in order to take the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act (“FPEAA”) off the California ballot this November.  

If passed by California voters, the FPEAA would have repealed PAGA and replaced it with a new statute and a new process that were more employer-friendly -- and more employee friendly. 

(The idea of a ballot initiative to repeal or create laws may sound very unusual to anyone outside of California.  But California permits this kind of mob rule, for better or worse, so long as enough signatures are gathered and verified to qualify to be placed on the ballot.)

For all of the celebration about how these PAGA amendments will benefit employers, the PAGA amendments remind me of nothing so much as New Coke. 

You don’t know about New Coke, do you? 

You see, back in 1985, Coca-Cola announced that it was changing the longtime formula for its soda and replacing it with a new formula that everyone would love even more. There was much excitement about it.  (Keep in mind that this was before the internet, smartphones, texting, streaming, etc.)  The launch of the new version of the soda was covered in the mainstream media, and people just couldn’t wait. They actually lined up outside stores to be the first to get their hands on it.

And then New Coke was launched.

In Elijah Baer, et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., fifteen plaintiffs filed a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) representative action lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) alleging wage-hour violations of California law. Two of the plaintiffs were employed by Staffmark Investment LLC (“Staffmark”) – a non-party staffing agency – and assigned to work at Tesla for a period in 2020. The other plaintiffs were direct former or current employees of Tesla going back to 2017. After Tesla removed the action to federal court, it moved to compel arbitration.

The plaintiffs signed various arbitration agreements throughout their employment. From the fall of 2018 to May 2022, Tesla utilized a recruiting software called Averture. According to Tesla, Averture required applicants to create a secure online profile with their own personal information. Eight of the plaintiffs signed offer letters with Tesla through Averture containing an arbitration provision. These plaintiffs did not dispute that they signed, and Tesla countersigned, the offer letters.

At some point in 2022, Tesla stopped using Averture and started using a system called Inside Tesla. The security measures applicable to Averture were largely the same as those employed by Inside Tesla; however, applicants who were offered employment under Inside Tesla signed an offer letter and a standalone arbitration agreement. Four of the plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements through the Inside Tesla system.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining California Governor Gavin Newsom’s new deal that was brokered to amend the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).  

Last week, Governor Newsom announced that California’s business and labor groups had come to an agreement to reform PAGA. Two legislative bills encompassing the agreed-upon PAGA reforms (AB 2288 and SB 92) were signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 1, 2024. Epstein Becker Green attorney Kevin Sullivan tells us more about the PAGA reforms, their potential impact on California employers, and who the likely winners and losers are.

With an anticipated increase in workers no longer subject to exemption from overtime pay under a new U.S. Department of Labor rule that is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2024 (learn more here), employers will need to sharpen their pencils and make adjustments. What’s more, on that date, many states and localities will see a hike in minimum wage requirements.

Most of these jurisdictions will have straightforward rate adjustments, with a uniform increase across all industries. However, a somewhat more complicated and significant development comes out of California, which has raised minimum wage mandates for just one sector.

On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, resolving a dispute among the appellate courts and concluding that Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims may not be stricken as unmanageable. 

While some have read the decision as a resounding victory for the plaintiffs’ bar that will force every PAGA case to settle for large amounts, the decision does no such thing.

It may challenge employers and their lawyers to be more creative, but it does not mean that every PAGA action now warrants an outsized ...

With limited exceptions, California law does not require employers to provide employees with a premium rate of pay for working during holidays or paid days off for holidays unless contractually obligated to do so. However, many employers chose to do so for a variety of reasons. For employers that choose to provide holiday benefits, your “presents” is requested for this read.  

Why offer holiday pay?

Many employers voluntarily elect to offer holiday benefits. Some common reasons for doing so are:

• Boosting employee morale;
• Increasing company loyalty;
• Making an employment offer ...

Although incorporating nondiscretionary compensation like commissions and (promised or contractual) production bonuses into the calculation of the “regular rate of pay” has been federal law for decades, claims involving that calculation – or lack thereof – have increasingly been brought by California plaintiffs’ lawyers.  Even though miscalculations or noncalculations may result in a difference of a few dollars or even pennies lost, plaintiffs’ lawyers litigate these claims in hopes of obtaining penalties that far outweigh any underpayments.  Rather than ...

There is a comedian by the name of Jeff Foxworthy who has been enormously popular for the past two decades or so. 

Perhaps you are familiar with him.  (And if you are, you probably thought that you stumbled upon the wrong blog just now.)

Remarkably, Mr. Foxworthy’s name comes up frequently when talking about whether workers have been properly classified as independent contractors.  Not because there is anything funny about that issue; there isn’t.  And not because Mr. Foxworthy was misclassified as an independent contractor.  Instead, his name pops up because Mr. Foxworthy has ...

An amended version of AB 1228 was passed in the California Legislature on September 14, 2023, [1] which would raise minimum wages for fast food workers and water down the authority of the new Fast Food Council that was created in a bill passed last year. AB 1228, originally introduced on February 16, 2023, was revised on September 11, 2023 after negotiations occurred between labor unions and the fast food industry. It significantly modifies provisions from the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (FAST Recovery Act) passed last year, which does not go into effect ...

With $3 million in funding from A.B. 102, California’s recent appropriations bill, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the administrative body charged by statute to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions, will reconvene for the first time since 2004, when it was defunded for budgetary reasons.  The IWC was established in 1913 and has gone through several changes throughout the years.  Its most recent, lasting impact on employment in California, however, consists of 17 “wage orders” regulating the wages, hours and working conditions in specific industries. 

The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District recently issued its opinion regarding business-related expenses in Thai v. International Business Machines Corporation. The Court found that expenses incurred by employees in direct consequence of performing their jobs may be reimbursable regardless of whether such expenses are directly caused by the employer.

Paul Thai was employed by defendant and respondent IBM. Thai required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, a computer and accessories in order to perform the functions of his job. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a stay-at-home order that instructed all California residents “[t]o stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors” and any other additional sectors later designated as critical. After the order went into effect, IBM directed Thai and thousands of other workers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and the other IBM workers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home, and IBM did not reimburse them for those expenses.

On July 21, 2023, a unanimous three-judge panel once again affirmed a California federal court’s ruling that the truck drivers who deliver ingredients from Domino’s Southern California Supply Chain Center to Domino’s California franchisees are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

Employers with operations both large and small in California are all too familiar with California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), the controversial 2004 statute that permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s attorney general and file suit on behalf of other employees to seek to recover penalties for alleged Labor Code violations.

PAGA lawsuits are filed with great regularity by members of the plaintiffs’ bar.

And the in terrorem effect of PAGA lawsuits, in which a plaintiff need not satisfy class certification criteria to represent an entire workforce, has led many employers to pay large settlements just to avoid legal fees and the possibility of larger awards -- even when the evidence of unlawful conduct is spotty or entirely absent.

Handbooks are developed to outline policies and procedures employees must abide by in the workplace.  But a handbook serves a dual, equally important purpose:  to act as an operable defense against workplace claims brought by employees as a way to demonstrate that the employer had equitable and compliant policies in place.

In California, employers are required to disseminate such workplace information to employees another way: through workplace postings.  The Department of Industrial Relations requires workplace postings be displayed in a ‘conspicuous’ place where they are easily visible to the intended audience, such as a bulletin board or mail-room/break-room wall or, in special circumstances, in a binder if there is no room to post such materials.  In California, every business must post not only the Wage Order(s) that apply to its operation and the minimum wage[1] where employees can see them, but also 16 other employment notices.  Failure to post required, up-to-date notices can have serious consequences, including costly penalties[2] and criminal charges. 

The California Supreme Court has issued its highly anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., concluding that plaintiffs who must arbitrate their “individual” PAGA claims are not deprived of standing to pursue “non-individual” PAGA claims in court on behalf of others.

More precisely, Justice Goodwin H. Liu wrote that “an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.”

The current statewide minimum wage rate in California is $15.50 for all employers. However, some localities across the Golden State have set their own higher minimum wage rate. For many of these localities, the next increase is set to take effect on July 1, 2023.

For example, in Los Angeles County, the minimum wage increases from $16.04 to $16.78 in the City of Los Angeles and from $15.96 to $16.90 in unincorporated areas.  Here is a list of those local cities and counties raising their minimum wage rates:

Following the California Supreme Court’s remand of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Court of Appeal in that same case held that the defendant-employer had not committed “knowing and intentional” violations of the wage statement statute by not including meal period premiums on the wage statements and had not “willfully” paid all wages due at the end of employment by not previously paying meal period premiums that were owed. The Court held that, although the employer did not prevail on its defense that employees in a certified class action were subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements, neither waiting time penalties (capped at 30 days’ of wages at the daily rate of pay for each former employee) nor wage statement penalties (capped at $4,000 per employee) could be imposed against the employer given the good faith dispute that any meal period premiums were owed.

The Ninth Circuit has issued its long-awaited ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, perhaps putting a nail in the coffin of the controversial California law known as AB 51, which would have made it criminal conduct to require an applicant or employee to sign an arbitration agreement.

The history of AB 51 and the case challenging it is a tortuous one, to say the least, but the issue has always remained the same: was the California legislature too clever in its attempt to circumvent the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Epic Systems?

The Los Angeles City Council passed the Fair Work Week Ordinance (“FWWO”) that seeks to “implement enforcement measures for the new fair work week employment standards” for employees in the retail sector.  Going into effect April 1, 2023, the FWWO will apply to any person, association, organization, partnership, business trust, limited liability company or corporation in the retail business or trade sector that directly or indirectly exercises control over the wages, hours or conditions of at least 300 employees globally.  This includes employees through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary staffing agency.

California plaintiffs’ lawyers typically bring every type of wage-hour claim they can.  Increasingly, however, they have focused on one type of claim – wage statement violations.

As we have previously written about, bringing class and representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) alleging that employers did not fully comply with California’s onerous wage statement laws has become a lucrative practice for the plaintiffs’ bar.  Given the flurry of litigation, it is beneficial for employers that do business in California to review their wage statements to best ensure compliance.

Employers based outside of California can suffer knockout blows if they enter the ring as employers in California and operate under the mistaken assumption that adherence to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is the same as complying with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders.  Below are the main ways (but certainly not the only ways) employers are “caught cold” because they do not receive or apply California wage-and-hour training and learn the hard way that the plaintiffs’ bar will not pull any punches.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15, 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana could have a tremendous impact upon pending and future litigation, as well as employment practices in the state.

For some California employers, it will impact pending Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) litigation where the named plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with a class and representative action waiver.

In a recent post addressing the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, we mentioned that employers in California will want to consider the “pros and cons” of arbitration agreements should an employer-friendly decision be issued in that case, rather than rush to implement them.

In response, more than a few people have asked the same or similar questions -- What are the “cons” of arbitration agreements? Why wouldn’t an employer want to use arbitration agreements, particularly if they will foreclose Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) actions in California?

There are “cons” to these agreements -- and they are not insignificant.

Silence can be telling.

That is especially so in the legal industry.

In the context of a hearing or oral argument, if judges or justices don’t ask an attorney a question, it can be incredibly encouraging – or incredibly discouraging.  It often means that the judges or justices have already made up their minds after having read the parties’ briefs and simply don’t have any questions or don’t need to hear anything more.

Employers with operations both large and small in California are all too familiar with California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), the controversial statute that permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s attorney general and file suit on behalf of other employees to seek to recover penalties for alleged Labor Code violations.

The in terrorem effect of PAGA lawsuits, in which a plaintiff need not satisfy class certification criteria to represent an entire workforce, has led many employers to pay large settlements just to avoid legal fees and the possibility of larger awards, even when the evidence of unlawful conduct is spotty or entirely absent.

Will 2022 be the year that PAGA is repealed?

More than three years after its landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana to determine whether Epic Systems extends to arbitration agreements that include waivers of representative actions brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Employers with operations in California, who have been plagued by the filing of boilerplate PAGA actions, could be heard to breathe a sigh of relief.

Misclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees is a costly mistake.  Among the many issues arising from misclassification is potential liability under federal and state minimum wage and overtime laws.  As the laws continue to change and develop, so do the risks to contracting entities.

Federal Changes

On September 27, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Garment Worker Protection Act, which makes California the first state to ban piece rate pay for garment workers, requiring instead that they be paid the minimum hourly wage.

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual defines piece rate as, “[w]ork paid for according to the number of units turned out … [that] must be based upon an ascertainable figure paid for completing a particular task or making a particular piece of goods.”

Since the Supreme Court issued its seminal 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, acknowledging that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) permits the use of arbitration agreements with class action waivers, many employers have implemented arbitration programs for their employees. Those arbitration programs have been aimed, in no small part, at avoiding the class and collective actions that have overwhelmed employers, particularly in California.

In response, California passed AB 51, which prohibits imposing “as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit” the requirement that an individual “waive any right, forum or procedure” available under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and Labor Code.

It is no secret that the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) has been a cash cow for plaintiffs’ counsel in California.

PAGA allows a single employee (and their counsel) to file suit on behalf of other employees for alleged Labor Code violations, without having to go through the class action mechanism.  In other words, a PAGA plaintiff can file suit seeking penalties for hundreds or thousands of employees, yet never need to show that there are common issues susceptible to common proof – or even that their own claims are typical of those of other employees.

As a result, there has been little to prevent plaintiffs and their counsel from filing massive PAGA actions on behalf of all of an employer’s employees, even without having any basis to believe that many those employees suffered any violation at all.

Many people are employed at airports.  Of those, many individuals work within the terminals for private companies.  Federal law requires that those employees who work in the terminals must go through security checks – just like travelers.

Jesus Cazares was one of those employees, working at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).  In bringing a lawsuit against his employer, Host International, Inc. – which operates the Admiral Club at LAX – Cazares alleged that he and his fellow employees were not paid for the time they spent passing through airport security checks en route to their work at the Admiral Club.  The district court rejected the notion that such time is compensable under California law and, earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit agreed in Cazares v. Host International, Inc.

In a decision that seems like to be reviewed by the California Supreme Court or rejected by other California Courts of Appeal, one of California’s appellate courts has issued a perplexing decision holding that even employees whose claims are time-barred can file representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

In Gina Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., the Fourth Appellate District held that the plaintiff could pursue PAGA claims on behalf of other employees even though her own claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

California law generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees a premium of one hour of pay for non-compliant meal and rest periods. Employers have typically paid such premiums by using the employees’ standard hourly rates. A new California Supreme Court decision requires employers to pay premiums at a higher rate when employees receive nondiscretionary compensation. This change in the law not only will require employers to adjust how they calculate meal and rest period premiums going forward, but it also exposes some of them to litigation for their past practices if ...

California law generally requires that non-exempt employees be paid 1.5 times their “regular rate of pay” for work performed beyond 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day – and twice their “regular rate of pay” for time worked in excess of 12 hours in day or beyond 8 hours on the seventh day of the workweek.

While “regular rate of pay” is not expressly defined in the California Labor Code, there should be few questions about what that rate is when an employee works at the same rate during the workweek.

But when an employee works at two (or more) different rates of pay during a single ...

On May 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a win to Walmart in a lawsuit brought by Roderick Magadia (“Magadia”) alleging violations of California’s wage statement and meal break laws.

The Ninth Circuit overturned a $102 million dollar judgment issued by United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh – comprised of $48 million in statutory damages and $54 million in civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  It did so because it found that Magadia lacked Article III standing because he could not establish that he suffered ...

For decades, the practice of motor carriers arranging for freight to be transported by independent owner-operators—i.e., independent contractors who drive their own trucks—has been ubiquitous. However, this practice is now under threat in California because of a recent court decision.

On April 28, 2021, in California Trucking Ass’n v. Bonta, No. 20-55106 (9th Cir. 2021) (“CTA v. Bonta”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the broad preemption language of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 ...

We have previously discussed on this page how rounding practices can be problematic.  Now, in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court has provided yet another reason for employers in California to review their time rounding practices, as well as their meal period practices.

As we previously discussed, more than eight years ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified many of the general requirements for meal and rest periods under California law.  Relevant to the decision in Donohue, the Court held that employees must be ...

In November 2020, California voters approved Proposition 22, removing businesses that operate on-demand rideshare and food delivery platforms from the scope of AB 5, California’s controversial independent contractor law.  But before voters approved Proposition 22, the Attorney General of California filed suit against two such businesses, seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and penalties.

As we wrote about here, in August 2020, a California Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting those businesses from treating drivers who use their ...

As we have previously written here, the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California were properly classified as independent contractors, creating a new “ABC” test that has subsequently been codified as AB 5. A significant question left open was whether Dynamex would apply retroactively.

In Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., the California Supreme Court has concluded that Dynamex indeed applies retroactively ...

Which state’s wage and hour laws apply to Louisiana employers whose employees applied and interviewed for their jobs in Louisiana, acknowledged receipt of employment documents in Louisiana, and resided in Texas, Mississippi, and Ohio while they worked offshore?  The answer, according to the California Court of Appeals, is California if the employees are based in California.

In Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, employees worked on a vessel that provided maintenance services to offshore oil platforms located outside California’s ...

In a continuing trend, employers are abandoning on-call scheduling as states and cities continue to pass predictive scheduling laws.

1. What is Predictive Scheduling?

Predictive scheduling laws require employers to give employees adequate notice of when they will work so that they can plan for and around their work shifts.  The idea is that, unlike on-call scheduling, predictable schedules make it easier for workers, especially part-time retail and restaurant workers, to meet their needs, such as working another job, attending school, or arranging childcare.  The laws generally ...

The legal landscape surrounding independent contractor relationships in California continues to evolve swiftly.

As we wrote here, in January 2020, state court Judge William Highberger issued a decision holding that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts use of California’s version of the “ABC” test (as adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, and subsequently codified in AB 5) to differentiate between independent contractors and employees in the trucking industry.  More ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  California voters passed Proposition 22, which will exempt app-based transportation and delivery network companies from the state’s AB5 worker classification law. Attorneys Amy Ramsey and Kevin Sullivan tell us what this means for CA employers and the gig economy more broadly. You can read more here.

Video: YouTube, Vimeo, MP4, Instagram.

As we have written here before, ride share and food delivery companies doing business in California had a lot at stake in the November 3, 2020 election. In fact, it was possible that those businesses might even cease doing business in California depending on the outcome of the election – or dramatically change their business models in the state.

Specifically, on November 3, 2020, California voters were asked to decide the fate of Proposition 22, the ballot initiative that would remove those companies from the scope of AB 5 and allow drivers to be treated as independent contractors. (As ...

November 3, 2020 has been circled on the calendars of app-based ride share and food delivery companies doing business in California for many months now.  After a new ruling by the California Court of Appeal, those companies have likely gone back and circled that date a few more times in thick red ink.

On November 3, 2020, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 22, the ballot initiative that, if passed, will allow app-based ride share and food delivery companies to treat drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees, carving them out of California’s ...

In response to the increased use and enforcement of class and collective action waivers, plaintiffs’ attorneys are now relying on a new strategy to gain leverage over businesses.  More specifically, they have started to commence mass arbitrations by simultaneously filing hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of individual arbitration demands in an effort to trigger a business’ obligation to pay its share of filing fees for the arbitrations.

Depending on the number of arbitration demands at issue, the filing fees alone can add up to tens of millions of dollars.

Postmates ...

We recently authored “Elections May Decide Fate of Gig Worker Classification Regs,” the first of a series of articles on wage and hour issues for Law360.  Subscribers can access the full version here - following is an excerpt:

As the gig economy has grown, so too have questions about it. One of the most consequential questions in the past several years has been whether workers in the gig economy are properly classified as independent contractors for purposes of various federal and state statutes, or whether they should be classified as employees of the businesses with which they ...

On September 9, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 736, expanding the professional exemption under Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) under Wage Orders Nos. 4-2001 and 5-2001 to expressly include part-time or “adjunct” faculty at private, nonprofit colleges and universities in California.  The sponsors of AB 736, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, advocated for the bill to address perceived ambiguities in the California Labor Code that had spawned litigation causing some colleges and universities to ...

Many employers with operations in California may already be familiar with Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.  The heavily litigated case, first filed in 2013, involves claims that Apple retail employees are entitled to compensation for time spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory exit searches.

The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that those employees are entitled to be paid for that time, holding that they are entitled to an award of summary judgment in their favor.  That is a far cry from the original 2015 ruling in the case in which United States District Court Judge William Alsup denied the ...

We have written frequently here about AB5, California’s controversial law that creates an “ABC” test that must be satisfied in order for a worker to be treated as an independent contractor.  As we explained here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.

While the statute was unambiguously aimed at ride share and food delivery companies that treat drivers as ...

As we wrote here just several days ago, Californians were facing the seemingly unimaginable this week– the possibility of living without ride share services for the foreseeable future.

In short, a state court judge issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requiring ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees in purported compliance with  AB 5, California’s controversial new law that only permits workers to be classified as independent contractors in most industries if they satisfy an “ABC” test.

After the same judge refused to stay the TRO during the ...

To some, it may feel like it was a lifetime ago when ride share companies did not even exist.  In those seemingly long-ago days, people relied upon friends to drive them to or from the airport, or assigned designated drivers for those nights when they attended events where alcohol would be served, or used other methods of transportation to travel the roadways to their various destinations.

Californians may soon be living like that again.

As we shared the other day, a California Superior Court has issued a temporary restraining order requiring ride share companies to treat their drivers as ...

We have written here frequently about California’s controversial AB 5 law, which permits companies to treat workers as independent contractors only if they satisfy a stringent “ABC” test.

The broad statute, unambiguously written to try to force companies to treat gig economy workers as employees, has been the subject of a great deal of debate and litigation, including a state court action filed by the State Attorney General trying to force ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees.

In the action filed by the State Attorney General, the Superior Court judge has ...

The California Labor Commissioner’s Office has taken aim at Mobile Wash, Inc., a business that offers a mobile app for on-demand car washing and detailing services, filing a lawsuit against the company and its president to enforce AB5, California’s controversial law designed to make it more difficult for businesses to engage workers as independent contractors.

As we wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be ...

Faced with the question of whether unionized employees and their employer can bargain away the right to be compensated for employer-mandated travel time, a California Court of Appeal has ruled that they in fact may not do so.  In Carlos Gutierrez v. Brand Energy Services of California, Inc., the Court concluded that Wage Order 16 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11160) requires that employees be paid for all employer-mandated travel time — and that it cannot be negotiated away by a union and the employer.

The plaintiff in the case was a journeyman scaffold worker at gasoline refineries. He and ...

Many hospitality businesses, such as restaurants and bars, have found themselves restructuring their daily operations in light of the current global COVID-19 health crisis, and the subsequent federal, state, and local shelter in place orders. For instance, where restaurants and bars once served customers on a dine-in basis, perhaps they are now restricted to take-out only or delivery options, and, as a result, many employers who are still operating in the wake of the pandemic now have very few employees with customer-facing roles.

Because of the necessary changes in daily ...

California law has specific requirements regarding the payment of overtime to employees. An employer’s failure to pay overtime—or failure to pay the correct overtime rate—can result in a litany of unintended Labor Code violations, which, in turn, can lead to enormous liability. Therefore, it is critical that employers understand when overtime is due and how to calculate the overtime rate of pay.

1.   When is overtime pay due?

In California, the general overtime requirement is that a nonexempt employee shall receive a premium of at least:

• One and one-half times the employee’s ...

For those of you who may have been wondering whether the California Attorney General’s office was still open during the statewide stay-at-home order triggered by the coronavirus, the answer is yes – as evidenced by a statewide misclassification lawsuit filed in San Francisco by the Attorney General, along with the city attorneys for Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego.

The lawsuit alleges that ride share companies have unlawfully misclassified drivers as independent contractors under AB 5, the controversial statute that went into effect on January 1, 2020.

As we previously wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.

To satisfy the “ABC” test, the hiring entity must demonstrate that:

• the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
• the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
• the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

We have written here about the efforts of several gig economy companies like DoorDash to avoid having to conduct – and pay for – thousands of individual arbitrations alleging that their workers had been misclassified.

As we have said before, companies that implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers must be careful what they ask for.  By using such agreements, they run the risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations, the cost of which could threaten the companies’ very existence.  (In California, we estimate that the arbitration costs ...

California generally requires that, when employees accrue vacation time during their employment, any accrued but unused vacation time must be paid out at the end of employment.  But so-called “unlimited” vacation policies have generally been understood to be a potential exception to that rule.  Such “unlimited” policies are more accurately referred to as “professional” or “reasonable use” vacation policies, where such policies do not provide for vacation to accrue.  Instead, employees under such policies are allowed to take an unspecified amount of paid time ...

It is no secret that independent contractor misclassification claims are being filed against employers with a great deal of frequency, often as class actions and often in California.  Many of those lawsuits have been filed against gig economy companies.  But, of course, they are not the only companies facing such claims.

As a result, many companies that classify workers as independent contractors are asking a basic question, “Are those workers properly classified?”

It sounds like such a simple question, one that should have a simple answer.

But there is no simple answer, at least ...

Be careful what you ask for.

We have used that expression frequently when writing about recent federal court orders requiring DoorDash and Postmates to conduct thousands of individual arbitrations in California pursuant to the terms of their arbitration agreements with their drivers.

Thousands of individual arbitrations for which DoorDash and Postmates would have to pay many millions of dollars in arbitration fees alone.

The risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations attends any time an employer seeks the benefits of an arbitration agreement ...

Employers in California have been inundated with wage-hour class actions for the past two decades.  And, time and again, they have had to deal with employee-friendly decisions from the California Supreme Court.

Leave it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to step in and put an end to a proposed class action, finding that there were no “real-world consequences” from wage statements that had an error in the employer’s name.

In Lerna Mays v. Walmart Stores, Inc., the plaintiff brought suit under California Labor Code section 226 after receiving her final pay stub, which listed her ...

Recently, we wrote here about a federal court order requiring DoorDash to conduct more than 5,000 individual arbitrations under the terms of its mandatory arbitration agreements, with each arbitration to address claims that it had misclassified its drivers as independent contractors.

The order would fall in the category of “Be Careful What You Wish For.”  In seeking to avoid class or collective actions by having employees sign arbitration agreements with class action waivers, employers face the possibility of hundreds or thousands of individual arbitration for which they ...

We encourage our readers to visit Workforce Bulletin, the newest blog from our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green (EBG).

Workforce Bulletin will feature a range of cutting-edge issues—such as sexual harassment, diversity and inclusion, pay equity, artificial intelligence in the workplace, cybersecurity, and the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on human resources—that are of concern to employers across all industries. EBG's full announcement is here.

Click here to subscribe for email notifications—you’ll receive a confirmation email to click.

(And if you haven't ...

It is not unusual for businesses at risk of employee theft to implement security screenings for employees as they exit the employer’s facilities.  Such screenings are especially common in industries where small, costly items could easily be slipped into a pocket or handbag – jewelry, smartphones, computer chips, etc.

In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., those security screenings now seem likely to lead to even more litigation wherein employees claim that they were not paid for their time spent waiting to be screened, at least in ...

It’s no secret that many employers have employees sign arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers in the hopes of avoiding the massive wage-hour lawsuits that have become so prevalent in the past two decades.

Nor is it any secret that, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems affirming that such agreements can be valid, even more employers have chosen to use them with their workforces.

But, in discussing with clients whether to implement such agreements, lawyers worth their salt have always told their clients this: “Be careful what you ...

As we recently wrote here, Uber and Postmates (and two of their drivers) to file an eleventh-hour lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of California’s controversial new independent contractor law – known as AB 5 – against them.

In a significant blow to the challenge to the companies’ challenge to the new law, the court has denied Uber and Postmates’ request for a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of AB 5 against them.

In denying the request for a preliminary injunction, the court concluded that Uber and Postmates were not likely to succeed on the merits of ...

As we wrote here, United States District Court Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California wrote a brief “minute order” explaining that she was issuing a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of California’s controversial anti-arbitration law, known as AB 51.

The new law, which was set to go into effect on January 1, 2020, would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements with employees. AB 51 would also prohibit arbitration agreements that would require individuals to take affirmative action to be excluded from arbitration, such as opting out.  ...

The California Legislature’s attempt to circumvent both the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Epic Systems by crafting a new law prohibiting California employers from requiring employees to enter into arbitration agreements is off to a rocky start in the courts, to say the least.

As discussed below, a federal court has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of California’s controversial new anti-arbitration statute known as AB 51.  Barring some new development, it now appears clear that the statute cannot be ...

As we have written here, the day before California’s controversial AB 5 was set to go into effect, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law as to approximately 70,000 independent truckers.

Subsequently, Judge Benitez granted a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the statute to those truckers.

In reaching his decision, Judge Benitez concluded that, as to independent truckers, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts AB 5.

The preliminary injunction is a significant ...

As we recently wrote here, just hours before California’s controversial AB 5 went into effect, a federal court in San Diego issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin enforcement of the independent contractor statute as to approximately 70,000 independent truckers, many of whom have invested substantial sums of money to purchase their own trucks and to work as “owner-operators.”

Now, days after a state court judge ruled that the statute does not apply to independent truckers, the federal court has extended the TRO while it decides whether to enter a ...

As we recently wrote here, on December 29, 2019, just days before California’s new arbitration statute known as AB 51 was to go into effect, a federal judge in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin enforcement of AB 51.

The new law, which was set to go into effect on January 1, 2020, would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements with employees.

AB 51 would also prohibit arbitration agreements that would require individuals to take affirmative action to be excluded from arbitration, such ...

Following the challenges to AB 5, California’s controversial new independent contractor law, can be a difficult endeavor.  Every day seems to bring a new development.

We have written before about the hasty passage of the statute, about a ballot initiative to escape the scope of the law by ride-share and delivery companies, and challenges by independent truckers, freelance journalists and photographers, and ride-share and delivery companies.

While many were focused on whether a federal judge, who had already issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the new ...

As we wrote here recently, organizations representing freelance journalists and photographers filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of California’s controversial independent contractor statute, AB 5, as to them.

While they are not the only ones challenging the new law, their suit is not off to a promising start.

While a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin AB 5 as it applies to independent truckers,  U.S. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles denied the freelance journalists and photographers’ request for a TRO on January ...

On January 1, 2020, California’s new independent contractor statute, known as AB 5, went into effect.  The law codifies the use of an “ABC” test to determine if an individual may be classified as an independent contractor.

The hastily passed and controversial statute has been challenged by a number of groups as being unconstitutional and/or preempted by federal law, including ride-share and delivery companies and freelance writers.

Just hours before AB 5 went into effect, a California federal court in San Diego enjoined enforcement of the statute as to some individuals – ...

AB 5, California’s hastily passed and controversial independent contractor statute, which codifies the use of an “ABC test,” is set to go into effect on January 1, 2020.

Already, the California Trucking Association has filed suit challenging the statute.

As have freelance writers and photographers.

Now, it’s ride-share and delivery companies’ turn to file suit.

Those companies have already commenced the process to create a ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to exempt ride-share and delivery drivers from the “ABC test.”

Now, on December ...

We recently wrote about a new California law set to go into effect on January 1, 2020 that would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements with employees.

The new law, known as AB 51, would also prohibit arbitration agreements that would require individuals to take affirmative action to be excluded from arbitration, such as opting out.  The law would also appear to extend to jury waivers and class action waivers. And it would include criminal penalties.

An eleventh-hour court order will keep that statute from being enforced, at least for a few days.

On December 29, 2019, just days before ...

We have written previously about California’s new statute, referred to as AB 5, which codifies and expands the “ABC test” for independent contractors set forth in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court.

A California ballot initiative that would remove ride-share and delivery drivers from application of the “ABC test” is already underway.

And the California Trucking Association has filed suit challenging the statute.

Now, other organizations have challenged the statute. Specifically, organizations representing freelance writers and photographers have ...

It seems as though there is a minefield that employers must navigate to ensure that they fulfill their wage and hour obligations to their employees. Employers must somehow comply with overlapping and seemingly contradictory federal, state, district, county, and local requirements. The wave of civil actions that are filed against employers alleging wage and hour violations is not slowing. And given the potential financial consequences for non-compliance, illustrated in part by a $102 million award for technical paystub violations, meeting these requirements must be a ...

On November 26, 2019, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) might not apply to Uber drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce while driving passengers to or from international airports.

In his claims before the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (“DLSE”), driver Sangam Patel (“Patel”) seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, meal and rest break premiums, and unpaid business expenses allegedly owed by Uber. Uber petitioned to compel arbitration of Patel’s (“Patel” ...

As businesses throughout the State of California continue to grapple with the potential implications of AB5, a new law designed to make it more difficult for companies to treat workers as independent contractors, the California Trucking Association (“CTA”) is taking legal action.

As we previously wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.

To satisfy the ABC ...

Upsetting what many considered settled precedent, a California Court of Appeal has held that a mandatory service charge may qualify as a “gratuity” under California Labor Code Section 351 that must be distributed to the non-managerial employee(s) who provided the service.

In O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc., No. A148513, plaintiff, a banquet server and bartender, filed a putative class action against their employer for its failure to distribute the entirety of the proceeds of an automatic 21% fee added to every food and beverage banquet bill to the ...

As we wrote here recently, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill known as AB5, which is designed to make it more difficult for companies to treat workers as independent contractors.  The new law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, codified and expands the “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.

Now some gig economy businesses are striking back.  On October 29, 2019, a coalition of ...

In bringing meal and rest period claims on behalf of their clients, the plaintiffs’ bar has long argued that merely because there was an alleged meal or rest period violation, there were also “derivative” statutory violations entitling their clients to additional penalties.  By arguing that an employer is also on the hook for such penalties, plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the potential exposure is greater.  And with greater potential exposure, employers will be more inclined to settle – or so the rationale goes.

These purported “derivative” violations have come in ...

As employers with operations in California had feared, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 51, which effectively outlaws mandatory arbitration agreements with employees – a new version of a bill that prior Governor Jerry Brown had vetoed repeatedly while he was in office.

The bill not only prohibits mandatory arbitration agreements, but it also outlaws arbitration agreements in which employees must take an affirmative action to escape arbitration, such as opting out.

And as the statute is written in broad terms that extend to waivers of statutory “procedures,” it appears to ...

There may soon be a fair number of big rig trucks for sale in California, as well as computers, desks and other material investments of persons who determine that they may no longer offer their services as independent contractors and must shut down their small businesses, a potential repercussion of new legislation intended to restrict the use of independent contractor status in the state.

Whether those and other practical consequences of the hurried passage of the new law were considered by the California legislature is unclear.

But the eleventh-hour exemptions that were extended ...

We have frequently written about California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), a unique statute that allows private individuals to file suit seeking “civil penalties” on behalf of themselves and other “aggrieved employees.”

The only remedy available to employees in actions brought under PAGA is a civil penalty.  That is significant because civil penalties are unlike the remedies available in conventional lawsuits that are not brought under PAGA; such non-PAGA remedies can include allegedly unpaid overtime, vacation pay, or meal and rest period ...

On August 22, 2019, in Trina Ray et al. v. County of Los Angeles and Trina Ray et al. v. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Case Numbers 17-56581 and 18-55276, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that home care workers may sue Los Angeles County for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Until recently, California home care workers (also known as companions) whose wages are paid by state or county programs were exempt from state and federal overtime laws. Beginning on January 1, 2015, however, a new Department of Labor ...

Given the prevalence of wage-hour class actions filed against California employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from time to time asks the California Supreme Court to clarify certain California wage-hour laws. Last week, the Ninth Circuit asked again in Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., seeking clarification on the following two questions:

1. Does the absence of a formal policy on meal and rest breaks violate California law?
2. Does an employer’s failure to keep records of meal and rest breaks taken by employees create a rebuttable presumption that the breaks were not provided?

More than seven years ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified many of the general requirements for meal and rest periods under California law. Nothing the California Supreme Court said has slowed the filing of meal and rest period class actions against employers doing business in the state.

California wage-hour law is governed in large part by 18 different wage orders that apply to different industries and occupations. “The number of wage orders, and their internal variations, reflects the reality that differing aspects of work ...

As we have previously written, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission. A significant question left open by that ruling was whether Dynamex would apply retroactively.

On May 2, 2019, in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., the Ninth Circuit concluded that Dynamex in ...

On June 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and unanimously held that California state wage-and-hour laws do not apply to drilling workers off the coast of California.

In Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, the Court held that, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), state law “is not adopted as surrogate federal law” on the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) if “federal law addresses the relevant issue.”

In the case, an employee on the OCS brought claims under a variety of California ...

While it may be true that employees rarely even look at their wage statements, there is one group of persons who certainly do – plaintiffs’ lawyers.  Or, more precisely, California plaintiffs’ lawyers.

And after a stunning $102 million award against Wal-Mart for wage statements that the court concluded did not fully comply with California’s onerous wage statement laws, California plaintiffs’ lawyers are likely to look at their clients’ wage statements even more closely – and to file even more class action lawsuits alleging that employers’ wage statements failed ...

In April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, dramatically changing the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”). In so doing, the Court held that there is a presumption that individuals are employees, and that an entity classifying an individual as an independent contractor bears the burden of ...

On April 12, 2019, in a federal case known as Hamilton v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a California jury awarded more than $6 million in meal break premiums to a class of Wal-Mart employees who worked at the company’s fulfillment center in Chino, California.  The jury found that by requiring class members to complete a mandatory security check prior to leaving the facility, Wal-Mart discouraged them from leaving the premises for meal breaks, failing to comply with its obligation to provide class members with required meal breaks.  The verdict – which Wal-Mart may well appeal – provides ...

On February 4, 2019, a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal issued their majority and dissenting opinion in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc.  It appears to be a precedent-setting decision in California, holding that an employee scheduled for an on-call shift may be entitled to certain wages for that shift despite never physically reporting to work.

Each of California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage orders requires employers to pay employees “reporting time pay” for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to ...