1. Ending Subminimum Wages

Starting January 2025, SB 639, originally enacted in 2021, fully takes effect. This law ensures that workers with disabilities earn at least the standard minimum wage by ending new subminimum-wage licenses and phasing out existing ones. This change affirms California’s commitment to fair pay and equal treatment for all workers, regardless of ability.

2. Safety During Extreme Weather

Farmworkers now have the right to take sick leave during dangerous weather conditions, thanks to SB 1105. This law aims to protect the health and safety of farmworkers who often work in harsh environmental conditions.

3. Event Safety Standards

AB 2738 introduces new safety and training requirements for live events, ensuring the protection of both workers and audiences. This law builds upon existing regulations to create safer environments for everyone involved in live events.

4. Fair Treatment for Freelancers

SB 988 mandates that freelancers receive written agreements and timely payment for work valued at over $250. This law aims to provide greater financial security and clarity for freelance workers, who often face challenges in securing fair compensation.

5. No Unnecessary Driver’s License Requirements

Under SB 1100, employers are prohibited from requiring a driver’s license unless driving is an essential part of the job. This law helps prevent discrimination against individuals who may not have a driver’s license but are otherwise qualified for the job.

6. Intersectionality in Anti-Discrimination Laws

SB 1137 makes California the first state to explicitly adopt the concept of intersectionality into its anti-discrimination laws. This law clarifies that discrimination based on the intersection of two or more protected traits is prohibited.

7. Captive Meetings Ban

SB 399 prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend mandatory meetings that discuss the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters, including union discussions. Employees who refuse to attend such meetings must continue to be paid, and employers face penalties for violations.

Employers should review these changes to California employment law carefully to ensure compliance, while employees can look forward to enhanced protections and rights in 2025. For more information on California employment law, give us a call at (213) 553-4550 or visit us online.

Recognizing Sexual Harassment

Employers need to recognize signs of sexual harassment in the workplace. Some common forms of sexual harassment include:

• Unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors
• Sexual comments, jokes, or innuendos
• Displaying sexually suggestive images or objects
• Offensive gestures or physical contact

By familiarizing yourself with these behaviors, you can create a safer and more inclusive work environment.

Reporting Sexual Harassment

Employees should feel comfortable reporting instances of sexual harassment without fear of retaliation. As an employer, you must establish clear reporting procedures and ensure confidentiality. Here are some steps you can take:

• Develop a written policy defining sexual harassment and how employees can report it.
• Train your employees on the reporting process and their rights.
• Designate a neutral and trustworthy person to handle complaints.
• Investigate all complaints promptly and thoroughly.
• Take appropriate disciplinary action against the harasser.

By taking these steps, you can create a culture where employees feel safe and supported when reporting sexual harassment incidents.

Preventing Sexual Harassment

Preventing sexual harassment is crucial for maintaining a positive work environment. Here are some proactive measures you can implement:

• Provide regular training sessions on sexual harassment prevention for all employees.
• Establish a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment.
• Encourage open communication and create channels for employees to voice concerns.
• Lead by example and ensure management sets a respectful and inclusive tone.

Promoting a culture of respect and equality can significantly reduce the risk of sexual harassment in your workplace.

At Kaplan Weiss LLP, we understand the complexities of sexual harassment laws in California. Our experienced team of employment law attorneys can provide expert guidance and support to ensure compliance with these laws.

Contact Kaplan Weiss LLP today to learn more about our sexual harassment in the California workplace!

Misclassifying Employees as Exempt: A Costly Mistake

Misclassifying employees as exempt from overtime pay is a joint pitfall employers must avoid. California law has strict criteria for exempt status, including meeting specific salary and job duty requirements. Failure to correctly classify employees can lead to significant liability for unpaid overtime wages. Employers should regularly review job descriptions, salary levels, and exempt status requirements to ensure compliance.

Off-the-Clock Work: The Danger of Unrecorded Hours

Employers must be vigilant in ensuring that all hours worked by employees are accurately recorded and compensated. Off-the-clock work, such as answering emails or performing tasks outside regular working hours, can easily lead to unpaid overtime claims. Implementing clear policies that require employees to record all hours worked, providing training on proper timekeeping, and monitoring compliance can help avoid potential disputes.

Failure to Include All Compensation in Overtime Calculations

Calculating overtime pay based solely on an employee’s base salary is another common pitfall. California law requires employers to include various forms of compensation, such as bonuses, commissions, and specific benefits when calculating overtime rates. Failing to include these additional earnings can result in underpaying overtime wages and potential legal consequences. Employers should ensure they understand the specific requirements for calculating overtime pay and include all applicable compensation in their calculations.

Unauthorized Overtime: The Importance of Obtaining Prior Approval

Allowing employees to work overtime without prior approval can lead to disputes over unpaid wages. Employers should establish clear policies regarding overtime work and require employees to obtain approval before working additional hours. Regularly communicating and consistently enforcing these policies can help prevent unauthorized overtime and subsequent claims for unpaid wages.

Failure to Provide Adequate Meal and Rest Breaks

California law mandates that employees receive certain meal and rest breaks based on the hours worked. Failure to provide these breaks or ensure employees take them can result in unpaid overtime claims. Employers should establish and enforce policies that allow employees to take their required breaks, maintain accurate records of break times, and provide a supportive work environment that encourages employees to take their breaks as required by law.

At Kaplan Weiss LLP, we understand unpaid overtime claims’ complexities and potential pitfalls. Our experienced employment law attorneys in Los Angeles, CA, can provide guidance and representation to help employers navigate this challenging area of law.

Contact Kaplan Weiss LLP today if you need assistance with unpaid overtime claims or other employment law matters!

1. Age Discrimination

Age discrimination is when an employer discriminates against an employee or job applicant based on their age. This type of discrimination is prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and can occur during any stage of the employment process, including hiring, promotion, and termination.

2. Disability Discrimination

Disability discrimination is when an employer discriminates against an employee or job applicant based on their disability. This type of discrimination is prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and can occur during any stage of the employment process.

3. Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination is when an employer discriminates against an employee or job applicant based on their gender. This type of discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and can occur during any stage of the employment process.

4. Race Discrimination

Race discrimination is when an employer discriminates against an employee or job applicant based on their race. This type of discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and can occur during any stage of the employment process.

5. Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Sexual orientation discrimination is when an employer discriminates against an employee or job applicant based on their sexual orientation. This type of discrimination is prohibited in some states and cities, but there is no federal law that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.

Understanding the different types of employment discrimination is crucial for preventing discrimination in the workplace. Employers should ensure that their policies and practices are fair and unbiased towards all employees, regardless of their age, disability, gender, race, or sexual orientation. If you believe that you have been a victim of employment discrimination, it is important to seek legal advice from an experienced employment discrimination attorney.

At Kaplan Weiss LLP, we specialize in employment law and can provide you with the legal representation you need to protect your rights. Contact us today to learn more about our services and how we can help you.

1. Understand Your Rights

The first step is to understand your rights as an employee. You are protected by federal and state laws that prohibit employers from terminating employees for certain reasons, such as discrimination, retaliation, or for exercising their legal rights. Familiarize yourself with these laws and consult with an employment lawyer to determine if your termination was unlawful.

2. Keep Records

It is important to keep records of any communication or documentation related to your termination. This includes emails, performance evaluations, and any other relevant documents. These records can be helpful in proving your case if you decide to pursue legal action.

3. File a Complaint

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated, you can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or your state’s labor department. These agencies can investigate your claim and may be able to help you resolve the issue without going to court.

4. Consult with an Employment Lawyer

If you are considering legal action, it is important to consult with an experienced employment lawyer. They can help you navigate the legal process, gather evidence, and represent you in court if necessary.

5. Consider Your Options

There are several options available to you if you were wrongfully terminated. You may be able to negotiate a settlement with your former employer, file a lawsuit, or pursue alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation or arbitration. Your employment lawyer can help you determine the best course of action based on your individual circumstances.

Being wrongfully terminated can be a difficult and stressful experience. However, by taking action and protecting your rights, you can seek justice and move forward.

If you need help with your case, contact Kaplan Weiss LLP for a consultation. Our experienced employment lawyers can help you navigate the legal process and fight for your rights.

Who Is Covered by the Law:

• Employers who employ more than 25 employees
• Employees who are unable to work or telework for an employer because of any of the following reasons:
  • The employee is subject to a quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19 as defined by an order or guidelines of the State Department of Public Health, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or a local health officer who has jurisdiction over the workplace. (If the employee is subject to more than one of the foregoing, the employee shall be permitted to use COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave for the minimum quarantine or isolation period under the order or guidelines that provides for the longest such minimum period.)
  • The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.
  • The employee is attending an appointment to receive a vaccine for protection against contracting COVID-19.
  • The employee is experiencing symptoms related to a COVID-19 vaccine that prevent the employee from being able to work or telework.
  • The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.
  • The employee is caring for a family member, who is subject to an order or guidelines described above or who has been advised to self-quarantine.
  • The employee is caring for a child, whose school or place of care is closed or otherwise unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19 on the premises.

Amount of Leave Available:

• An employee is entitled to 40 hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave, if the employee satisfies either of the following criteria:
  • The employer considers the employee to work full time.
  • The employee worked or was scheduled to work, on average, at least 40 hours per week for the employer in the two weeks preceding the date the employee took COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.
• An employee who does not satisfy the above criteria is entitled to an amount of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave as follows:
  • If the employee has a normal weekly schedule, the total number of hours the employee is normally scheduled to work for the employer over one week.
  • If the employee works a variable number of hours, seven times the average number of hours the employee worked each day for the employer in the six months preceding the date the employee took COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. If the employee has worked for the employer over a period of fewer than six months but more than seven days, this calculation shall instead be made over the entire period the employee has worked for the employer.
  • If the employee works a variable number of hours and has worked for the employer over a period of seven days or fewer, the total number of hours the employee has worked for that employer.
• An employee is entitled to additional COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave of up to 40 hours as calculated above if the employee, or a family member for whom the employee is providing care, tests positive for COVID-19.
  • An employer may require the employee to submit to a diagnostic test on or after the fifth day after the above positive test. The employer shall make such a test available at no cost to the employee.
  • If the employee requests to use additional leave because a family member for whom they are providing care tests positive for COVID-19, the employer may require that the employee provide documentation of that family member’s test results before paying the additional leave.
  • The employer has no obligation to provide additional COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave for an employee who refuses to provide documentation of the results of the test described above upon the request of the employer.
  • The employee does not need to exhaust the leave to which they are entitled before using the additional leave for a positive test.

Required Compensation:

Each hour of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave shall be compensated at a rate equal to the following:

• For nonexempt employees, by one of the following:
  • The regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek.
  • An amount calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total non-overtime hours worked in the full pay periods occurring within the prior 90 days of employment.
    • for nonexempt employees paid by piece rate, commission or other method that uses all hours to determine the regular rate of pay, total wages, not including overtime premium pay, shall be divided by all hours, to determine the correct amount of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave under this subdivision
• For exempt employees the amount shall be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time.
• An employer shall not be required to pay more than $511 per day and $5,110 in the aggregate to an employee for COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave taken by the employee unless the federal legislation is amended to increase the amounts.
• An employee who has reached the maximum amounts may choose to utilize other paid leave that is available to the employee in order to fully compensate the employee for leave taken.
• An employer may not require an employee to use any other paid or unpaid leave, paid time off, or vacation time provided by the employer to the employee before the employee uses COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave or in lieu of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.
• If an employer pays an employee another supplemental benefit for leave taken on or after January 1, 2022, that is payable for the reasons listed above and that compensates the employee in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of compensation for COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to which the employee is entitled, then the employer may count the hours of the other paid benefit or leave towards the total number of hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave that the employer is required to provide to the employee.

Other Details to Know:

• The total maximum amount of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave an employee is entitled to pursuant to this section shall not exceed 80 hours for the period between January 1, 2022, and September 30, 2022.
• The total number of hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to which an employee is entitled is in addition to any paid sick leave that may otherwise be available to the employee.
• An employee may determine how many hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to use, up to the total number of hours to which the employee is entitled.
• The employer shall make COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave available for immediate use by the employee, upon request of the employee.
• An employer is not required to provide an employee more than the total number of hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to which the employee is entitled.
• COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave must be set forth on the employee’s itemized wage statement separately from other paid sick days. The employer shall list zero hours used if a worker has not used any COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.
• The requirement to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave shall apply retroactively to January 1, 2022.
  • For any such leave taken since January 1, 2022, if the employer did not compensate the covered employee in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of compensation for COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to which the covered employee is entitled, then upon request of the employee, the employer shall provide the covered employee with a retroactive payment that provides for such compensation.
  • If the employer did compensate the covered employee in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of compensation for COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to which the covered employee is entitled, then upon request of the employee, such employee should be credited for any leave hours used for COVID-specific leave purposes, and the employer should be credited for providing those hours as COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.
  • For any such retroactive payment, the number of hours of leave corresponding to the amount of the retroactive payment shall count towards the total number of hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave that the employer is required to provide to the employee.
  • The retroactive payment must be paid on or before the payday for the next full pay period after the request of the employee and shall be noted on the wage statement.
  • An employer may require an employee to provide documentation of a positive COVID-19 diagnostic test during the retroactive period.

Contact us for a consultation regarding the new law.

Click to read the full text of the law: 2022 Covid-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

Paycheck Protection Program

The Paycheck Protection Program provides loans for all businesses – including nonprofits, veterans organizations, Tribal business concerns, sole proprietorships, self-employed individuals, and independent contractors with 500 or fewer employees, and certain businesses with greater than 500 employees. The program provides businesses with up to $10 million in funding depending on the company’s payroll expenses and other factors. This program will allow for loan forgiveness for some or all of the loan depending on how the funds are used. The SBA published the following information and instructions:  PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM (PPP) INFORMATION SHEET.

Applications for this program will have to be submitted through a bank or an existing SBA lender. The application process is set to open on April 3, 2020 for small businesses and sole proprietorships and April 10, 2020, for independent contractors and self-employed individuals. The SBA has created the application, which you can find here: Application

Economic Injury Disaster Loans and Loan Advance Program

The Economic Injury Disaster Loans and Loan Advance program offers loans of up to $2 million. Applicants may also request an advance of up to $10,000 from the SBA. The loan will be required to be repaid, but the applicants will not be required to repay this advance. Applications for this program are open now. You can find the application here: https://covid19relief.sba.gov/.

Additional information and resources:

• sba.gov/page/coronavirus-covid-19-small-business-guidance-loan-resources
• uschamber.com/co/start/strategy/cares-act-small-business-guide
• CARES ACT

Although in some circumstances classification as an independent contractor may be advantageous to workers as well as to businesses, many unscrupulous employers misuse the independent contractor label to circumvent the labor laws and to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over competitors who properly classify similar workers as employees. The result is that many California workers have been denied proper compensation and the labor law protections to which they were entitled.

California’s New “ABC” Test for Independent Contractors

In a recent decision Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (SC S222732 4/30/18), the California Supreme Court cracked down on the misclassification of workers as independent contractors and created a new “ABC” test to determine when a worker should be properly classified as an employee. Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent contractor only if the employer establishes: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer in connection with the performance of the work; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the employer.

Misuse of the independent contractor label may subject an employer to significant liability for unpaid wages, overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, and other Labor Code violations.

In deciding to expand the protections of Equal Pay Act, the California legislature found that the gender wage gap in California remained steady, with women earning only 84 cents on the dollar compared to men. However, for minority women the disparity is even more substantial, with African American women in California making just 63 cents and Hispanic women less than 43 cents for every dollar earned by white non-Hispanic men.

Due to the history of women receiving lesser pay than men for the same jobs, under the new law, an employee’s prior salary history can no longer be used as justification for a wage disparity.

Exceptions to the California Equal Pay Act

As with prior versions of the law, there are exceptions. The prohibitions against wage disparity apply to employees who are doing substantially similar work, when considering skill, effort, and responsibility, and when performed under similar working conditions. An employer will not be in violation of the law when a wage differential is based on one or more of the following legitimate factors:

• A seniority system.
• A merit system.
• A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.
• A bona fide factor other than sex, race or ethnicity, such as education, training, or experience relevant to the job position and the needs of the business.

An employer is also required to demonstrate that factors relied upon were applied reasonably and account for the entire wage differential. In other words, the employer must prove that any wage disparity is entirely unrelated to an employee’s gender, race or ethnicity.

An employee who was the victim of wage discrimination in violation of the equal pay laws is entitled to recover twice the wages he or she lost due to the employer’s discrimination, plus interest and attorney’s fees.

Under the new ordinances, which first went into effect on July 1, 2016, the minimum wage rate will continue to rise over the next five years until reaching $15/hour for all employees working in the City of Los Angeles by the year 2021. The applicable minimum wage rates and annual increases depend on the number of people employed by a particular employer as detailed in the following Minimum Wage Chart:

In addition to the minimum wage increase, under the new ordinances, employees who work in the City of Los Angeles for the same employer for 30 days or more within a year, will now be entitled to 48 hours of paid sick each year based on the following guidelines:

• Employees will be entitled to take up to 48 hours of sick leave in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period.
• Employers must provide sick leave either: 1) by providing the entire 48 hours to an employee at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period; or 2) by providing the employee one hour of sick leave per every 30 hours worked.
• Paid sick leave shall accrue on the first day of employment or July 1, 2016, whichever is later.
• An employee may use paid sick leave beginning on the 90th day of employment or July 1, 2016, whichever is later.
• Accrued unused paid sick leave shall carry over to the following year of employment and may be capped at 72 hours. An employer may set a higher cap or no cap at all.
• If an employer has a paid leave or paid time off policy or provides payment for compensated time off, that is equal to or no less than 48 hours, no additional time is required.
• An employer shall provide paid sick leave upon the oral or written request of an employee for themselves, a family member or for any individual related by affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. An employee may also be required to provide reasonable documentation of an absence from work for which paid sick leave is or will be used.
• An employer is not required to provide compensation to an employee for accrued or unused sick days upon termination, resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment.
• If an employee separates from an employer and is rehired by the employer within one year from the date of separation, previously accrued and unused paid sick time shall be reinstated.

Employer Requirements

Under the new minimum wage ordinances, employers are required to do the following:

• Pay hourly minimum wage for hours worked by employees within the City of Los Angeles.
• Post the Office of Wage Standards Wage Notices in a conspicuous place at any workplaces or job sites in multiple languages, including any language spoken by at least five percent (5%) of the employees at the workplace or job site.
• Keep payroll records for a period of four (4) years.
• Provide employees with the employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing at the time of hire.
• Employers are prohibited from retaliating against any employee exercising rights under the Minimum Wage and Wage Enforcement Division Ordinances.

Remedies

Employees who are denied the required minimum wage increases or paid sick leave are entitled to the following, among other, remedies:

• Payment of wages unlawfully withheld;
• Payment of Sick Time Benefits unlawfully withheld; and/or
• An additional penalty of up to $120 to the Employee and up to $50 to the City for each day that either violation occurred or continued.
• In cases of retaliation, the employee may be entitled to reinstatement, as well as triple the wages, sick time and penalties owed.
• An employee may also file a lawsuit in civil court.

Additionally, employers who violate the provisions of these Minimum Wage Ordinances may be subject to administrative fines for each and every day that a violation occurs.

Resources:

Los Angeles Minimum Wage Ordinance

Los Angeles Office of Wage Standards Ordinance

The Court reasoned that “In their collective bargaining agreement, the players and the League mutually decided many years ago that the Commissioner should investigate possible rule violations, should impose appropriate sanctions, and may preside at arbitrations challenging his discipline.” The Court also noted that “Although this tripartite regime may appear somewhat unorthodox, it is the regime bargained for and agreed upon by the parties, which we can only presume they determined was mutually satisfactory.”

In essence, the Court of Appeals held that since the NFL disciplinary system was something negotiated and agreed-upon by the parties, it is therefore not the court’s place to interfere with the Commissioner’s rulings or the labor arbitration process. The lesson from the Court’s ruling is that if the players are not comfortable with the current arbitration procedure, the issue must be resolved through negotiations and in the collective bargaining agreement rather than through court intervention.

According to the California legislature, in 2014 the gender wage gap in California was at 16 cents on the dollar. That means a woman working full-time earned an average of 84 cents to every dollar a man earned. The wage gap extended across almost all occupations and was far worse for minority women. For example, Latina women in California made only 44 cents for every dollar a white male made, which was the biggest gap for Latina women in the U.S. Women working as full-time employees in California lose approximately $33,650,294,544 each year as a result of this wage disparity. The wage gap also contributes to higher statewide poverty rate among women, particularly among minority women and single women with children.

Although California law has prohibited gender-based wage discrimination since 1949, the California Equal Pay Act is rarely used to enforce wage disparity claims due to the difficult in establishing a successful claim. The amendment to the Equal Pay Act is designed to eliminate the gender wage gap in California by making it easier for an employee to establish a successful claim of gender-based wage discrimination.

Changes to the California Equal Pay Act

Under prior law, an employer was prohibited from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex “in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”

To ease the requirements for maintaining a successful suit under the Equal Pay Act, the new law prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work,” when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility. There is no longer a requirement that the jobs consist of equal work performed in the same establishment.

In addition, the new law now places the burden of proving an exception to the equal pay requirements squarely on the employer. To establish an exception, an employer must affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based upon one or more specified factors. These factors include a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. An employer is also required to demonstrate that factors relied upon were applied reasonably and account for the entire wage differential. In other words, the employer must prove that any wage disparity is entirely unrelated to the employee’s gender.

Finally, the new law prohibits an employer from terminating, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against, any employee for enforcing his or her rights to equal pay. To facilitate enforcement of the new law, an employer cannot prohibit an employee from disclosing the employee’s own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee’s wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights to equal pay.

An employee who was the victim of wage discrimination in violation of the equal pay laws is entitled to recover twice the wages he or she lost due to the employer’s discrimination, plus interest and attorney’s fees.

Resources:

• Senate Bill No. 358
• Labor Code Section 1197.5
• Wage Discrimination

In reaching his decision, Judge Berman found that Tom Brady had inadequate notice of the possible discipline for the alleged offense, or that a four-game suspension could be imposed. Moreover, Judge Berman found that NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, improperly denied Tom Brady equal access to investigative files and the opportunity to examine certain witnesses.

Judge Berman Noted:

“It is the ‘law of the shop’ to provide professional football players with (advance) notice of prohibited conduct and of potential discipline. Any disciplinary program requires that individuals subject to that program understand, with reasonable certainty, what results will occur if they breach established rules. Because there was no notice of a four-game suspension in the circumstances presented here, Commissioner Goodell may be said to have dispensed his own brand of industrial justice. When the arbitrator’s words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award.” (Decision and Order, pg. 25, internal citations and quotations omitted.)

Based on his review of the record and applicable legal authorities, Judge Berman overturned Tom Brady’s four-game suspension, effective immediately.

The Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act of 2014 went into effect on July 1, 2015. Under the new law, California employers are now required to provide paid sick days to certain employees. Paid sick time accrues at a minimum rate of one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Employees are entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment. Accrued paid sick days will carry over to the following year of employment.

No Retaliation for Accommodation Request

On July 16, 2015, California enacted Assembly Bill No. 987, making it unlawful for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an employee for “requesting” accommodation for a physical or mental disability or religious belief or observance, regardless of whether the accommodation was granted. The new law clarifies that a request for reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability constitutes protected activity under Government Code Section 12940 of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. An employee may not be subject to relation for making such a request.

California Cheerleaders are Employees

On July 15, 2015, California passed a new law adding section 2754 to the California Labor Code. Under the new law, cheerleaders working for California professional sports teams must now be classified as employees, and are protected by existing State and Federal employment laws, including minimum wage and overtime laws and anti-discrimination and harassment statutes.

Existing California and Federal employment laws prescribe comprehensive requirements relating to minimum wages, overtime compensation and standards for working conditions applicable to an employment relationship. Existing laws require employers to make specified payments and withholdings from wages and provide detailed wage statements to employees reflecting all payments and deductions. Existing laws also provide protection to employees for, among other things, discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Under this new California law, California cheerleaders are now protected by the existing State and Federal laws governing the employment relationship, including payment of minimum wage, overtime compensation, standards for working conditions and prohibitions against discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 202, enacting California’s new cheerleader law on July 15, 2015. The cheerleader law will be added as Section 2754 to the California Labor Code.

Assembly Bill No. 202 (PDF)

California Legislative Information

Text of Labor Code Section 2754:

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “California-based team” means a team that plays a majority of its home games in California.

(2) “Cheerleader” means an individual who performs acrobatics, dance, or gymnastics exercises on a recurring basis. This term shall not include an individual who is not otherwise affiliated with a California-based professional sports team and is utilized during its exhibitions, events, or games no more than one time in a calendar year.

(3) “Professional sports team” means a team at either a minor or major league level in the sport of baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, or soccer

(b) Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of all of the provisions of state law that govern employment, including this code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), a cheerleader who is utilized by a California-based professional sports team directly or through a labor contractor during its exhibitions, events, or games, shall be deemed to be an employee.

(c) The professional sports team shall ensure that the cheerleader is classified as an employee.

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., operates several lines of clothing stores, each with its own “style.” Consistent with the image Abercrombie seeks to project for each store, the company imposes a Look Policy that governs its employees’ dress. Abercrombie’s Look Policy prohibits employees from wearing “caps” as too informal for Abercrombie’s desired image. Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim woman who wears a headscarf consistent with her religious obligations. Elauf applied for a position in an Abercrombie store, and was interviewed by the store’s assistant manager. Based on Abercrombie’s ordinary system for evaluating applicants, Elauf received a rating that qualified her to be hired. However, Abercrombie decided not to hire Elauf because her headscarf conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit suit on Elauf’s behalf for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elauf holding that the Civil Rights Act prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship.

The Court concluded that an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice a fac­tor in employment decisions. To prevail on such a claim, an applicant must show only that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating fac­tor in the employer’s decision. This applies regardless of whether the employer had knowledge of the prospective employee’s need for an accommodation.

Elauf was awarded $20,000 in damages at trial.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (US 14–86 6/1/15)

Angela Aguilar was employed by Asarco, LLC at the Mission Mine complex near Tucson, Arizona from December 2005 through November 2006. The Mission Mine includes a copper mine from which copper ore is extracted and a mill facility in which the ore is crushed, filtered, and refined. Ms. Aguilar started as a mill laborer and became a car loader operator in March 2006. She then became a filter operator in the filter plant and later, a rod and ball mill person. Angela Aguilar claimed that during her time at Asarco, she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and was ultimately forced to resign from her employment. She filed a lawsuit against Asarco, alleging harassment, constructive termination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

After the conclusion of an eight-day trial, the jury found Asarco liable on Aguilar’s sexual harassment claims. Although Angela Aguilar was awarded only $1 in actual damages, she was awarded the maximum of $300,000 in punitive damages against Asarco. In addition, the Court awarded Angela Aguilar $350,902.75 in attorneys’ fees and costs. These awards were later determined to be appropriate by the Federal Court of Appeals.

In upholding theses amounts, the Court of Appeals concluded that an award of $300,000 in punitive damages — the maximum amount permitted under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a — comports with due process even though the jury only awarded $1 in actual damages.

Resources:

• State of Arizona v. Asarco (9th Cir. 11-17484 12/10/14)
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
• Los Angeles Employment Attorneys

While on-call, the guards were required to reside in onsite trailers provided by CPS. An on-call guard who wanted to leave the worksite had to first notify a dispatcher where he or she would be and for how long. The on-call guard would only be permitted to leave if another employee was available for relief. If no reliever was available, the on-call guard was required to remain onsite, even in the case of a personal emergency. Even if relieved, an on-call guard was required to stay close enough to the site to be able return within 30 minutes, and had to be available by pager or telephone.

The CPS security guards were paid hourly for time spent patrolling the worksite, however, they received no compensation for on-call time unless they were required to perform certain work duties during their on-call period, such as responding to an alarm or conducting an investigation.

The CPS security guards filed suit, alleging that CPS’s on-call compensation policy violated minimum wage and overtime obligations.

The California Supreme Court concluded that the security guards’ on-call time constituted hours worked within the meaning of California’s labor laws and was subject to minimum wage and overtime requirements. The Supreme Court ruled that security guards are entitled to compensation for on-call hours spent at their assigned worksites under their employer’s control, including sleep time.

Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions (SC S212704 En Banc 1/8/15)

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that warehouse workers who packaged deliveries for Amazon.com customers, were not entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) for time spent undergo­ing security screenings before leaving the warehouse each day.

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., required its hourly warehouse workers, who retrieved products from warehouse shelves and packaged them for delivery to Amazon.com customers, to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day. Several former employees sued Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. alleging they were entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the time they spent each day waiting to undergo and undergoing those screenings. The former employees further alleged that the screenings were for the sole benefit of the employers and their customers, rather than the employees, as they were intended to prevent employee theft.

Applying the Portal-to-Portal Act, which exempts employers from liability for certain work-related activities, including preliminary or postliminary activities, “which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities” (29 U. S. C. §254(a)), the Court held the security screenings at issue in the case were not compensable postliminary activities, since they were not integral and indispensable to the employee’s job duties.

The Court explained that “an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform—and thus compensable under the FLSA—if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.”

Relative to the security screenings at issue in the case, the Court determined they were not the “principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform,” as “Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment to Amazon customers.” Indeed, “Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work.”

Since the Court concluded the employees’ time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing Integrity Staffing’s security screenings is not “an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform,” the Supreme Court denied the employees’ claims for compensation for such time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Resources:

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk 574 U.S. ___ (2014)

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

Los Angeles Employment Lawyers

Beginning on July 1, 2015, California employers will be required to provide paid sick days to certain California employees. Employees who work for 30 or more days within a year from the date of commencement of employment are entitled to receive paid sick days. The paid sick days accrue at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. Employees will be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment. An employee’s accrued paid sick days will carry over to the following year of employment.

An employer may limit use of paid sick days to 24 hours or three days in each year of employment.However, employer’s are prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days.

Purpose of the Law

The Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act of 2014 was enacted to provide protection to California employees. The law accomplishes this purpose by doing the following:

1. Ensuring that California workers can address their own health needs and the health needs of their families with paid sick days;
2. Decreasing health care costs by enabling workers to seek early and routine medical care for themselves and their family members;
3. Protecting California workers from losing their jobs while using sick days; and
4. Providing economic security to California employees who take time off from work for reasons related to domestic violence or sexual assault.

Sick days may be used for “diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee’s family member.” Family members who are covered by the law include children, parents, spouses, domestic partners, siblings, as well as grandchildren and grandparents. Sick days may also be used for an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

An employer may satisfy the requirements of the The Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act of 2014 if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy that satisfies the accrual, carry over, and use requirements of the Act.

Resources:

• The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (full text)
• This is an act to amend Labor Code Section 2810.5, and to add Labor Code Section 245 et seq.