Wage and Hour Law Archives - Page 3 of 5

Rest Period Pay and Overtime Premiums for Piece-Rate Workers

Chad SaundersDecember 29, 2016March 13, 2017

A complicated and developing area of California wage and hour law involves how to calculate wages and premium pay for piece-rate workers. In this post, we will explain the calculations for rest period wages and overtime premiums for piece-rate workers.

Many California workers are compensated on what is known as a “piece-rate” basis. Piece-rate means that a worker’s pay is based on a specific amount paid for completing a particular task or making a particular piece of goods. This could include truck drivers who are paid based on the number or type of loads delivered, factory workers who are paid based on the number of widgets completed, or construction workers, such as plumbers or electricians, who are paid based on the number of installations they do.

Even though piece-rate workers are not paid by the hour, they are still entitled to the protections provided by the California Labor Code. These protections include overtime premium pay for more than eight hours of work in a day or 40 hours in a week, meal periods before the end of fifth hour of work, separate compensation for required rest periods, and wage statements showing, among other things, the number of pieces completed, the applicable piece rates, and overtime and rest period pay.

But if someone is paid by the piece, how is their hourly wage calculated for the purpose of determining the amount of wages for paid rest periods and overtime premiums?

Continue reading “Rest Period Pay and Overtime Premiums for Piece-Rate Workers” →

Penalties for Late Payment of Wages under California Labor Code 204

Hunter PyleDecember 22, 2016October 29, 2020

How soon after payroll period are employers required to pay employees?

Employers in California have to pay their employees by a certain date. That date depends on whether the payments are made every two weeks (bi-weekly), twice a month (bi-monthly), or otherwise. If an employer does not make its payments on time, it can face significant liability under the Private Attorneys General Act, as described below. Continue reading “Penalties for Late Payment of Wages under California Labor Code 204” →

Can California Employers Combine Rest Breaks into One Break?

Hunter PyleOctober 31, 2016

One common source of PAGA penalties occurs when employers fail to authorize and permit the rest breaks that are required under California law. When this happens, workers can recover one hour of pay at their regular hourly rate for each day they are deprived of one or more rest breaks. They can also seek penalties […]

Suing for Unpaid Wages in California: Recovering Attorney’s Fees

Hunter PyleOctober 31, 2016October 29, 2020

If I lose my wage and hour claim, will I have to pay my employer’s attorney’s fees? California law provides many different ways for workers to recover attorney’s fees in wage and hour claims. Options for employees who wish to sue for unpaid wages may include: prevailing on a claim for failure to pay the […]

California Wage Statements and Exempt Employees

Hunter PyleSeptember 9, 2016May 9, 2017

California Labor Code section 226 requires that an employer provide its employees with wage statements, sometimes known as pay stubs, when it pays their wages. Section 226(a) provides a list of the specific information that must be included in wage statements. Employers that ignore these requirements face liability both under section 226(e), and, through PAGA, under section 226.3.

One of the requirements of section 226(a) is that the employer state the total number of hours that an employee worked. This requirement is important for most employees, because it is the most effective way to figure out whether you are paid for all hours worked. But what about employees who are not paid by the hour, like salaried employees or employees who are paid on a commission basis? Continue reading “California Wage Statements and Exempt Employees” →

Some Real Data Regarding the Gig Economy-and What It Tells Us About the Future of the U.S. Economy

Hunter PyleAugust 30, 2016March 13, 2017

It feels like the “gig economy” (also referred to euphemistically as the “sharing economy”) has taken over. Uber, Grubhub, TaskRabbit, wherever you look, it seems like employees are being replaced by independent contractors or temporary workers who are being exploited by internet-based companies. This perception is stoked by predictions in the tech industry, such as Intuit’s recent claim that by 2020, 43 percent of workers will be employed in the on-demand labor market. (Of course, Intuit markets its products to “on-demand employers,” so such predictions should be taken with a grain of salt.)

A tectonic shift of this nature would upend the way that we think about work and wages. Among other things, independent contractors are not subject to many wage and hour requirements, such as overtime and the minimum wage. And temp workers often struggle to piece together a livable income from multiple sources of employment. Continue reading “Some Real Data Regarding the Gig Economy-and What It Tells Us About the Future of the U.S. Economy” →

Commonality, Damages, and Representative Evidence: The Ninth Circuit Properly Cabins Dukes and Comcast, and Underscores Tyson Foods

Hunter PyleJune 13, 2016March 13, 2017

Over the past decade or so, higher court rulings regarding class actions have tended to dramatically favor either corporations or workers. Corporations have arguably scored the most significant victories. However, with the recent exit of Justice Antonin Scalia from the United States Supreme Court, there are some indications that this tide has begun to turn. At the same time, it is clear that a Republican victory in November 2016 would return a conservative majority to the Court, and devastate any positive momentum in terms of workers’ rights.

Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 13-56606 (June 8, 2016), a recent decision of the Ninth Circuit, is a good example of the type of decision that we can hope to see more of in the future. Vaquero does three important things. First, it properly limits the scope of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) with respect to the issue of commonality. Second, it limits the impact of Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) in wage and hour class actions. Finally, it underscores the critical holding in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) that plaintiffs may continue to rely upon representative evidence to prove both liability and damages. As such, Vaquero provides powerful ammunition for workers and their advocates in class actions. Continue reading “Commonality, Damages, and Representative Evidence: The Ninth Circuit Properly Cabins Dukes and Comcast, and Underscores Tyson Foods” →

Are Truck Drivers Entitled to Overtime Pay?

Tanya TamblingMay 31, 2016December 22, 2020

Many truck drivers work more than eight hours in a day or more than forty hours in a week. Based on the number of hours they work, are these truck drivers entitled to overtime pay? Maybe. There are several factors that impact whether truck drivers get overtime, such as: 1) the route the trucker is […]

Representative Evidence May Be Used to Prove Class Action Wage Claims

Chad SaundersMay 19, 2016March 13, 2017

In a case of national importance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers could use representative or statistical evidence to prove their claims for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (“Tyson Foods”). The case involved workers at a meat-processing plant in Iowa. They claimed that Tyson Foods did not pay them for the time they spent putting on and taking off (“donning and doffing”) protective equipment for their dangerous work, or for the time they spent walking to and from their workstations in the plant. At trial the workers used a report from an industrial relations expert to show the amount of time they spent donning and doffing. The expert had done videotaped observations to find out how long these activities usually took and then averaged the times. The average times were added to each employee’s timesheets to determine which employees worked more than 40 hours per week if their donning and doffing time was taken into account. The trial court accepted this evidence and the jury awarded the workers $2.9 million in unpaid wages. Continue reading “Representative Evidence May Be Used to Prove Class Action Wage Claims” →

The Timing of Rest Breaks: Before or After Meal Breaks, and Can a Company Combine Breaks into One Long Break?

Hunter PyleApril 25, 2016March 13, 2017

Two questions have bedevilled practitioners representing workers in California ever since the California Supreme Court issued Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court in 2012: In a shift that qualifies for two rest breaks and one meal break, are employers required to provide one rest break before the meal break and the other one after? And, on a related note, can an employer combine multiple rest breaks into one long rest break?

In Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc. (April 22, 2016), the employees worked eight hour shifts. The defendant provided them with one meal break and one 20 minute rest break that fell either before or after the meal break. The Second District Court of Appeal used this scenario to provide some critical guidance with respect to when and how employers must schedule rest breaks. Continue reading “The Timing of Rest Breaks: Before or After Meal Breaks, and Can a Company Combine Breaks into One Long Break?” →