Wage and Hour Defense Blog

The Michigan Supreme Court has written the latest, and perhaps last, chapter of an ongoing saga affecting most Michigan employers. In Mothering Justice v. Attorney General, the Michigan Supreme Court fully restored sweeping minimum wage and paid sick leave laws, bringing finality to a legal controversy that has been churning since the laws were first proposed in 2018. Pursuant to that decision, the laws will take full effect in their original form, about six months from now, on February 21, 2025.

How We Got Here

In 2018, labor advocacy groups presented the Michigan legislature with two voter initiatives related to minimum wage (the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA)) and paid sick leave (the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA)) through the state’s citizen initiative process. Michigan’s constitution allows voter initiatives to propose legislation, and the legislature may take one of these three actions: (1) adopt “without change or amendment”; (2) reject and place the proposed legislation on the ballot; or (3) reject and propose an amendment, placing both on the ballot. As we previously explained, the Legislature quickly enacted amended versions of the IWOWA (2018 PA 368) and the ESTA, which was renamed the Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA) (2018 PA 369), with significant changes. As we detailed here, the amended versions of these laws were less burdensome to employers.

The legislature’s actions led the initiatives’ advocates to file a legal action challenging the lawmakers’ authority to modify a voter initiative so quickly and dramatically through a process labeled “adopt and amend.”  That lawsuit has wended its way through Michigan’s courts, with the final outcome decided on July 31, 2024, echoing that of the initial holding issued in 2022: the Michigan legislature’s adoption-and-amendment of the two initiatives violated the State constitution’s provision on voter initiatives. Hence, those amendments are void as unconstitutional and the laws as originally conceived should take effect.

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If passed by California voters, the FPEAA would have repealed PAGA and replaced it with a new statute and a new process that were more employer-friendly -- and more employee friendly.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

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a new final rule through which it has significantly raised the bar for businesses to continue to classify their employees as exempt from overtime pursuant to the executive, administrative and professional (“EAP”) and “highly compensated employee” exemptions. Specifically, the DOL announced substantial increases to the salary threshold requirements for these exemptions, which will take effect on a staggered basis on July 1, 2024, and again on January 1, 2025.  

The New Salary Thresholds

The salary ...

Employers grappling with the many questions related to bringing employees back into the workplace safely in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic should pay close attention to the potential wage-and-hour risks attendant to doing so—including whether to pay employees for time spent waiting in line for a temperature check, verifying vaccination status, or completing other health screening inquiries.

Given the growing trend of COVID-19 lawsuits, ignoring these risks could leave employers vulnerable to costly class and collective action litigation.

What the Law Requires

Under ...

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 ...