On July 18, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion in Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., approving Taco Bell’s on-premises meal periods for employees who choose to purchase discounted food.
Like many food services employers, Taco Bell offers discounts on its food to its employees. And it requires that employees consume such food on premises.
In Rodriguez, employees contended that requiring employees to consume discounted meals on premises results in a meal period or unpaid wage violation, arguing that employees must be relieved of all duty and must be permitted to leave the ...
Voters in the District of Columbia on June 19, 2018 approved an initiative (Initiative 77) that would incrementally increase the minimum cash wage for tipped workers to $15.00 per hour by July 1, 2025, and starting July 1, 2026 to the same amount as the then-minimum wage for all other workers, effectively eliminating the tip credit. If the initiative takes effect, the District would join seven states that do not have a separate minimum wage for tipped workers, i.e., Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
The D.C. Council previously enacted ...
More than 7 months after hearing oral argument on an issue that will affect countless employers across the country – whether employers may implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers -- the United States Supreme Court has issued what is bound to be considered a landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (a companion case to National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris), approving the use of such agreements.
The decision will certainly have a tremendous impact upon pending wage-hour class and collective actions, many of which ...
When California employees bring lawsuits alleging minimum wage, overtime, meal period or rest period violations, they typically bring additional claims that are purportedly “derivative” of these substantive claims. One of these derivative claims is for wage statement (i.e., paystub) violations, alleging that because the employee was paid not all wages he or she allegedly earned, the wage statements he or she was provided were not accurate.
The maximum penalty for a wage statement violation under the California Labor Code is $4,000 per employee. With such a significant ...
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, clarifying 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 establishing that such a ...
In November 2017, four convenience store franchisees brought suit in federal court against 7-Eleven, Inc., alleging that they and all other franchisees were employees of 7-Eleven. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., case no. CV 17-7454-JFW (JPRx).
In alleging that they were 7-Eleven’s employees, the franchisees brought claims for violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code, alleging overtime and expense reimbursement ...
For more than 70 years, the Supreme Court has construed exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) narrowly. In A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, for example, the Court stated that “[t]o extend an exemption to other than those plainly and unmistakably within its terms and spirit is to abuse the interpretative process and to frustrate the announced will of the people.” 324 U.S. 490, 493 (1945). The Supreme Court has restated this rule many times in the intervening years, and the lower courts have followed, citing this principle in virtually every significant case ...
In a case of first impression that may have a significant impact upon wage-hour class actions in California, the California Court of Appeal has held that “joint employers” are not vicariously liable for each other’s alleged meal period violations.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal affirmed an award of summary judgment in favor of a temporary staffing company in a class action where the plaintiffs sought to hold the staffing company liable for alleged meal period violations they alleged they suffered while working for its client.
The decision provides something ...
Featured on Employment Law This Week: A California federal judge has ruled that a former GrubHub delivery driver was an independent contractor, not an employee.
The judge found that the company did not have the required control over its drivers for the plaintiff to establish that he is an employee. This decision comes as companies like Uber and Lyft are also facing lawsuits that accuse them of misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Carlos Becerra, from Epstein Becker Green, has more.
Watch the segment below and read our recent post.
Recently, a number of proposed class and collective action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of so-called “gig economy” workers, alleging that such workers have been misclassified as independent contractors. How these workers are classified is critical not only for workers seeking wage, injury and discrimination protections only available to employees, but also to employers desiring to avoid legal risks and costs conferred by employee status. While a number of cases have been tried regarding other types of independent contractor arrangements (e.g., taxi drivers ...
On October 14, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1701, which will make general contractors liable for their subcontractors’ employees’ unpaid wages if the subcontractor fails to pay wages due. The new law will go into effect on January 1, 2018.
Specifically, section 218.7 has been added to the Labor Code. Subdivision (a)(1) provides the following:
For contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018, a direct contractor making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other ...
Because of concerns about employee theft, many employers have implemented practices whereby employees are screened before leaving work to ensure they are not taking merchandise with them. While these practices are often implemented in retail stores, other employers use them as well when employees have access to items that could be slipped into a bag or a purse.
Over the last several years, the plaintiffs’ bar has brought a great many class actions and collective actions against employers across the country, alleging that hourly employees are entitled to be paid for the time they ...
We have previously written in this space about the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, holding that time spent awaiting bag checks was not compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). But is such time compensable under California law, which differs from the FLSA in some regards? The critical difference between the FLSA and California laws is that California law requires that employees be paid for all time when they are “subject to the control of the employer” or for all time that they are “suffered or ...
Not all new laws go into effect on the first of the year. On July 1, 2017, new minimum wage laws went into effect in several locales in California. Specifically:
- Emeryville: $15.20/hour for businesses with 56 or more employees; $14/hour for businesses with 55 or fewer employees.
- City of Los Angeles: $12/hour for employers with 26 or more employees; $10.50 an hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees.
- Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas only): $12/hour for employers with 26 or more employees; $10.50 an hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees.
- Malibu: $12/hour for ...
Persons who live and work outside of California, including employment attorneys and the most seasoned of human resources personnel, are often confounded when they first learn about California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). And, for many, the first they learn about PAGA is when a PAGA lawsuit has been filed against their company.
The same series of questions and answers often follow:
A single individual can file a lawsuit against an employer alleging that all employees were subjected to certain violations of the California Labor Code?
Yes.
Even if there are ...
Perhaps in response to protests brought by employees and their advocates in recent years, states, counties, and cities across America have been increasing their minimum wage in piecemeal fashion. Few employers are fortunate enough to need worry about only one minimum wage—the federal minimum wage that is the floor below which employers may not go (unless an employer is not covered under the FLSA). Most large employers that operate in multiple states must now navigate a minimum-wage patchwork in which the hourly rate varies from state to state and, sometimes, between counties and ...
As if California employers were not already besieged with wage-hour class actions and agency complaints, the state’s controller has now decided to get in on the action.
As The Los Angeles Times reported last week, Controller John Chiang has initiated a new program he calls “Operation Pay-Up” to recover unpaid wages. The article may be found here.
In short, the Controller is using California’s Unclaimed Property Law to attempt to gain restitution of wages believed to be withheld from employees. Any recovered wages that are unclaimed will be transferred to the state treasury ...
As if traffic in California was not bad enough by itself, employers in the trucking industry have one more thing to worry about – whether they are complying with California’s meal and rest break laws. In Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, the plaintiffs represent a class of delivery drivers and installers. Defendants had hoped to avoid the claim that they had violated California’s meal and rest break laws by arguing that as “motor carriers” the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) preempts California’s meal and rest break laws. The trial ...
By Michael Kun
Much has already been written about last week’s California Supreme Court decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, a greatly anticipated ruling that will have a substantial impact upon wage-hour class actions in California for years to come. Much more will be written about the decision as attorneys digest it, as parties rely on it in litigation, and as the courts attempt to apply it.
In a lengthy and unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse a $15 million trial award in favor of a class of employees who ...
By Michael Kun
If employers with operations in California believed that they could not possibly face more wage claims than they already do, they can think again.
The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) – the state agency that addresses wage claims – has launched a new website designed to notify employees of their rights and explain how to file claims:
http://www.wagetheftisacrime.com/What-We-Do.html#laborCommissioner
The website provides detailed information about the various types of claims individuals may bring, and how to bring ...
By Michael Kun
We have written several times in this blog about California’s unusual – and unusually vague – “suitable seating” law, which requires some employers to provide some employees with suitable seating if the nature of their work reasonably permits it. The previously obscure law has become the subject of numerous class actions in California. And parties and the courts have struggled to interpret a vague law that has little legislative history and even less interpretive case law.
As we wrote most recently in January, the Ninth Circuit essentially threw up its hands ...
We have written frequently in this blog about the great many wage-hour class actions filed against employers doing business in California. Those lawsuits often allege that a class of employees performed work off-the-clock, and that the employees are not only entitled to compensation for that time, but to a slew of penalties that often dwarf the amount of alleged damages.
Depending on the nature of an employer’s business, a plaintiff might allege that employees were not paid for the couple minutes it might take to “boot up” a computer in the morning, or for waiting to ...
By Michael Kun
A California plaintiff who prevails in a wage-hour lawsuit generally may recover his or her attorney’s fees. The same is so for employers -- but only for the next few months.
A new statute will take effect in January 2014 that will change whether and how an employer who prevails in such a case may recover its fees. In a state already overrun with wage-hour lawsuits with questionable merit, that new statute seems to ensure that even more meritless wage-hour lawsuits will be filed by plaintiffs’ counsel who count on the in terrorem effect of those lawsuits to force ...
There has been a lack of clarity in California wage and hour law on how compensation must be structured to meet the “salary basis test,” particularly where an exempt employee is paid based on hours worked. However, in Negri v. Koning & Associates, the California Court of Appeal addressed this very issue and concluded that a compensation scheme based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, is not considered a “salary” for the purpose of state overtime laws.
Under California law, an employee exempt from overtime laws must ...
By Michael Kun
As we have written before in this space, the latest wave of class actions in California is one alleging that employers have not complied with obscure requirements requiring the provision of “suitable seating” to employees – and that employees are entitled to significant penalties as a result.
The “suitable seating” provisions are buried so deep in Wage Orders that most plaintiffs’ attorneys were not even aware of them until recently. Importantly, they do not require all employers to provide seats to all employees. Instead, they provide that employers ...
By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen
To the surprise of few, the California Supreme Court has decided to review the Court of Appeal’s decision enforcing a class action waiver in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC.
We wrote in detail about that decision on this blog earlier this year.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on the April 2011 United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. Whether the California Supreme Court will follow Concepcion or attempt to distinguish it is impossible to predict. Unfortunately ...
By: Adam C. Abrahms
Last week Assembly Bill 889 cleared a California State Senate Committee, advancing it one step closer to becoming state law. The bill, authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D – San Francisco), seeks to extend most of California’s strict wage and hour regulations to domestic employees working in private homes. While the bill excludes babysitters under the age of 18, it extends California wage and hour protections to babysitters over the age of 18 as well as any other housekeeper, nanny, caregiver or other domestic worker.
Should the bill become law individual ...
Earlier this year, we were pleased to introduce our free wage-hour app for iPhones and iPads. The app puts federal wage-hour law, as well as that for many states, at users’ fingertips.
We have recently added New Jersey law to the app, as well as updated it to reflect changes in California law following the long awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision clarifying meal and rest period laws.
The app may be found here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id1320249735
By Michael S. Kun and Aaron F. Olsen
Earlier this week, the California Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC that illustrates how the legal landscape in California has shifted in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements with class action waivers. This, of course, is a welcome development for employers with operations in California, which have been besieged by class action lawsuits alleging wage-and-hour violations for the past 10+ years.
In 2006, the plaintiff in Iskanian filed a putative class action complaint against his ...
By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen
Plaintiffs seeking to bring state law wage-hour class actions against employers in the trucking industry have run into a significant road block in California. For the second time in a year, a United States District Court has held that claims based on California’s meal and rest period laws are preempted by federal law.
In Esquivel et al. v. Performance Food Group Inc., the plaintiffs claimed the defendant scheduled their delivery routes such that the plaintiffs were unable to take duty-free meal periods. The defendant argued that the Federal Aviation ...
By Michael Kun
Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division and the California Secretary of Labor announced that they were teaming up to crack down on employers who classify workers as independent contractors. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20120257.htm
The announcement that the two groups would work together on such an initiative should not come as much of a surprise to employers. Shortly after Hilda Solis took office as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, the Wage and Hour Division announced that it would be focusing on this issue. And California has ...
by Michael S. Kun, Eric A. Cook, and Jennifer A. Goldman
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two employment-related bills into law, raising the stakes for employers doing business in California. The two laws, which increase the penalties for employers that wrongly classify employees as independent contractors or engage in "wage theft," both go into effect on January 1, 2012.
By Michael Kun and Betsy Johnson
In a much-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court has expanded the scope of California’s complex wage-hour laws to non-resident employees who perform work in California. While the decision leaves more than a few questions unanswered, it will require a great many employers to review their overtime and other payroll practices. Perhaps just as importantly, it will likely open the door to lawsuits, including class actions, regarding prior overtime and payroll practices.
The case, Sullivan v. Oracle, has had a tortured history. In the ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- The U.S. Department of Labor’s Final Rule Increasing the Salary Threshold for EAP Exemptions Took Effect, Except for the State of Texas as an Employer
- Plaintiffs in California Putative Class Action Lose Numerous Challenges to Enforcing Arbitration, Barring Unclean Hands
- California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week
- Minimum Wage Increases (and Other Changes) Are Coming on July 1, 2024
- New Jersey Wage Theft Act Does Not Apply Retroactively, Per the State Supreme Court