In this time of political turbulence, many people wonder if they can be fired for their political beliefs or activities. In California, the answer to that question is no, thanks to the provisions of California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. Section 1101, which has been on the books since 1937, provides as follows: No […]
Read more...Blog
Can My Boss Run a Background Check on Me in California?
California has two laws that protect employees from unauthorized background checks: the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1785, et seq. (“CCRAA”) and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1786, et seq. (“ICRAA”). (This blog post addresses only ICRAA, but we will post about CCRAA soon.) The California Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of these statutes in a case called Connor v. First Student, Inc., S229428 (August 20, 2018). So now what? Continue reading “Can My Boss Run a Background Check on Me in California?”
Read more...Waiting Time Penalties under California Labor Code section 203
What are Waiting Time Penalties? California Labor Code Section 203 provides for penalties to workers who are not paid all wages due at the time of their termination, or within 72 hours of their resignation. Waiting time penalties are in the amount of the wages that the worker normally earns, up to a maximum of […]
Read more...Rancho Santiago Community College District Found Liable for Failing to Accommodate Disabled Employee
Plaintiff Maria Hernandez worked for Rancho Santiago Community College District on and off for several years without having any performance issues. In 2013, the district hired her as an administrative assistant. Per the district’s protocol, Ms. Hernandez was put on probation for one year. The district would evaluate her performance at three months, seven months and eleven months. At the successful completion of the probationary period, Ms. Hernandez would then become a permanent employee.
Eight months into her probationary period, Ms. Hernandez went out on district-approved temporary disability leave to have surgery. The district had not evaluated her performance at three and seven months. She was scheduled to return shortly after the one year anniversary of her hiring date.
Rancho Santiago Community College District terminated Ms. Hernandez while she was out of disability leave. She sued the district alleging that it has violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by failing to reasonably accommodate her and failing to engage in the interactive process. Continue reading “Rancho Santiago Community College District Found Liable for Failing to Accommodate Disabled Employee”
Read more...National Lawyers Guild Presents Hunter Pyle with the Champion of Justice Award
On April 14, 2018, the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter presented Hunter Pyle with the Champion of Justice Award at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts. Hunter was recognized for dedicating his career to fighting for economic justice as an employment attorney, championing the causes of workers’ rights, and contributing to […]
Read more...Supreme Court: Service Advisors are Exempt under the FLSA
Reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “service advisors” employed by car dealerships are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362, 2018 WL 1568025 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2018) (“Encino Motorcars II”).
The FLSA requires employers to pay employees overtime compensation if they work more than 40 hours a week, unless the employee is exempt. One of the exemptions in section 213 of the FLSA covers “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements….” 28 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A). Continue reading “Supreme Court: Service Advisors are Exempt under the FLSA”
Read more...Bonuses and Overtime in California: Does Your Company Owe You More Money?
If you work overtime in California and are are paid a bonus in addition to your hourly rate, you may be owed more money under a new California Supreme Court decision called Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. (2018) 2018 WL 1146645.
In Alvarado, the workers were paid an “attendance bonus” if they worked on a Saturday or Sunday: In addition to their hourly rate, they were paid an extra $15 per day of weekend work. California law requires that bonuses be included as wages when calculating overtime rates for employees who work more than eight hours in a day, or more than 40 hours in a week.
The question in Alvarado was how to calculate an employee’s overtime rate when the employee earned a flat sum bonus during a single pay period. Both the trial court and the court of appeal granted summary judgment to the employer. However, the California Supreme Court reversed, and clarified how flat rate bonuses should be factored into overtime pay: Continue reading “Bonuses and Overtime in California: Does Your Company Owe You More Money?”
Read more...Are Stock Options and Stocks Considered Wages?
There has been an increase in companies that compensate employees with stock options or equity (e.g. stock). This practice is used to reduce the financial burden on cash-strapped startups or to incentivize employees to maximize a company’s financial success. Because it is unclear if stock options or equity have tangible value, there is ambiguity regarding […]
Read more...Are You a Salaried Employee If You are Paid by the Hour?
Under California law, employers must pay workers overtime when work is performed: 1) over forty hours in a workweek; 2) over eight hours each day; or 3) on the seventh consecutive day in a workweek. However, employees that fall under the professional, executive, and administrative exemptions may be excluded from earning overtime compensation. For an […]
Read more...Using PAGA Claims To Recover Unpaid Wages: A Win For Workers In Lawson v. ZB
California workers are increasingly turning to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to protect their rights under the Labor Code. Labor Code section 558(a) is particularly useful to 
workers who have not been paid all wages owed, because it provides that workers can recover as a civil penalty any underpaid wages as well as an additional penalty of $50 or $100 for each pay period in which they were not paid all wages due.
California employers have been trying to force PAGA claims, including claims under section 558, into arbitration, where they believe they have a better chance of prevailing. Employers got a boost in 2017 from one particularly troublesome case called Esparza v. KS Industries (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228. There, the court held that the underpaid wages portion of a claim under Section 558 (as opposed to the penalties portion) was subject to arbitration.
Fortunately, another California court of appeal has issued a decision that rejects Esparza. In Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705 , the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that claims for unpaid wages under Section 558 cannot be severed from claims for penalties under that same section. Accordingly, such claims cannot be sent to arbitration. Continue reading “Using PAGA Claims To Recover Unpaid Wages: A Win For Workers In Lawson v. ZB”
Read more...