National workplace law firm Jackson Lewis P.C. congratulates the following Northern California attorneys for being honored by their peers:
San Francisco Managing Shareholder Fraser A. McAlpine, San Francisco Shareholders Mark S. Askanas, Dylan B. Carp, Cara M. Ching-Senaha, Bradley W. Kampas, Patrick C. Mullin, Robert M. Pattison and Mark S. Ross along with Sacramento Managing Shareholder David S. Bradshaw were selected to the 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers list. Each year no more than 5% of attorneys in the state are selected to receive this honor.
San Francisco Shareholder Punam Sarad, San Francisco Associates Joshua A. Kuns, Keahn N. Morris and David T. Wang and Sacramento Associates Amy S. Geiser and Erika Barbara Pickles were selected to the 2014 Northern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of attorneys in the state are selected to receive this honor.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas that have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country.
Jackson Lewis’ Heath Havey will be speaking on “Cross-Border Employment Law Issues: Effective Use of International Employment Counsel” at the July 30, 2014 Global Talent and Managing the 21st Century Workforce Conference in Silicon Valley at Stanford University.
Whether you are the CEO, CMO, CHRO, VP of HR, HR practitioner, head of a function or department, a management consultant, in-house mobility manager, realtor relocation director, or an entrepreneur, you likely have dealt with and/or managed people or processes related to international business and going global.
Some questions the conference seeks to answer include:
- How will talent be acquired, from where?
- How will the talent be trained and developed?
- How will it be deployed and will the relocation benefits serve ‘leadership development’ or will the relocation create additional problems?
- What about ‘succession planning’ and the ‘next assignment’ utilizing the new skills developed from the relocation experience?
We invite you to participate and join the conversation. We’re pleased to announce that Jackson Lewis has a small handful of free passes available on a first-come, firse-served basis and can extend a heavily discounted registration to interested parties when those passes are claimed. E-mail Rachel De Dora at email@example.com to inquire about a conference pass.
Please visit the conference website for more information: http://www.globalbusinessnews.net/conf.asp?cid=306
Employers with at least 50 full-time employees in the San Francisco Bay Area must offer commuter benefits, such as payments for commuter transit passes made with employees’ pre-tax earnings, to any employee who works at least 20 hours per week no later than September 30, 2014.
Covered employers also must communicate commuter benefits information to employees, designate a commuter benefits coordinator, and register with the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program (“CBP”). The CBP is a pilot program that will be effective until December 2016. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“Air District”) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) are authorized to adopt and implement the CBP.
The CBP applies to all public, private, or nonprofit entities that employ at least 50 full-time employees per week in the San Francisco Bay Area Continue Reading
David Bradshaw, Office Managing Shareholder of Jackson Lewis’ Sacramento office, has been listed in Daily Journal‘s ‘Top 75 Labor & Employment Lawyers’ in California. Mr. Bradshaw, who specializes in class actions and complex litigation, is profiled in the July 16, 2014 publication, highlighting his work on Silva v. See’s Candy Shops Inc. along with an ongoing case involving the National Labor Relations Board and a major retailer.
The California Supreme Court has narrowed application of the “commission exemption” from overtime, dealing employers a setback in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. S204804 (Cal. Jul. 14, 2014). Under Wage Orders 4 and 7, sales employees who earn more than 50 percent of their wages in commission and earn at least 1.5 times the state minimum wage may be exempt from California overtime requirements. The California Supreme Court ruled that an employer may not attribute commission wages paid in one pay period to other pay periods to satisfy California’s compensation requirements of earning at least 1.5 times the state minimum each pay period. The Court stated:
In conclusion, we hold that an employer satisfies the minimum earnings prong of the commissioned employee exemption only in those pay periods in which it actually pays the required minimum earnings. An employer may not satisfy the prong by reassigning wages from a different pay period.
Employers are reminded that this decision affects only employers under Wage Orders 4 and 7 since the commission exemption is stated only in these two Wage Orders. Employers still need to verify that the sales employees meet an overtime exemption under federal law. Employers relying on the “commission” exemption should consult with their legal counsel and conduct a review of their payroll procedures.
The California Division of Workers’ Compensation posted a corrected Spanish language time of hire pamphlet on its website. The previously posted Spanish language version contained some outdated information. We recommend employers download the new pamphlet for their new hire packets.
Employers should ensure they provide all the upon hire pamphlets required by California. If you have any questions, please contact Jonathan Siegel.
On July 9, 2014, a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California truck drivers are entitled to meal breaks and rest periods under California state law despite federal deregulation of the trucking industry. Prior to the Court of Appeals ruling in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, Inc. (July 9, 2014), several federal judges in California ruled that trucking companies were exempted from the requirement to provide mandatory breaks by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 which prohibits states from enforcing any statutes “related to a price, route or service of any motor carrier” that is transporting property. The Dilts decision now sets those rulings aside by holding truck drivers are protected by state law. The Court reasoned in its decision that “while motor carriers may have to take into account the [California] meal and rest break requirements when allocating resources and scheduling routes – just as they must take into account state wage laws, or speed limits and weight restrictions – the laws do not ‘bind’ motor carriers to specific prices, routes, or services.” Employers should monitor whether the case will be appealed.
In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., No. S196568 (Cal. June 26, 2014), the California Supreme Court has ruled that federal immigration law did not preempt California law extending employee protections and remedies “regardless of immigration status,” except to the extent it authorized damages for any period after the employer’s discovery of an employee’s ineligibility to work in the United States. An employee who repeatedly falsified his employment status to obtain employment, as his employer learned only after he was laid off a second time and filed suit, was not barred by the doctrines of “after-acquired evidence” or “unclean hands” from asserting claims for alleged disability discrimination against his employer under California law. However, the Court held the employee’s right to lost compensation was limited to the period preceding the employer’s discovery of the misconduct. As this case raises policy concerns regarding preemption under federal immigration law, it is possible U.S. Supreme Court review may be sought.
To read the full article on the Jackson Lewis website, please click here.
A clause delegating to an arbitrator the authority to decide questions of an arbitration agreement’s enforceability was not unconscionable under California law, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Malone v. Superior Court, No. B253891 (Cal. Ct. App. June 17, 2014). The Court affirmed an order enforcing the delegation clause and compelling arbitration. Significantly, the Court rejected, as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), California case law reasoning that such delegation clauses are unconscionable because arbitrators have a financial self-interest in finding an agreement arbitrable — so that they can be compensated for arbitrating the dispute on the merits and be considered for further arbitration assignments.
To read the full article on the Jackson Lewis website, please click here.
New law SB 1360 has clarified that recovery periods, like rest periods, are paid time. This is a significant clarification of the law since there was an ambiguity in the past whether recovery periods were to be treated as paid time or unpaid time. Until now, the situation was unclear as recovery periods were mandated by California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) regulations, not the California Labor Code. Continue Reading