Webinar Detail

January 6, 2016
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM PST

California’s amended Fair Pay Act, effective January 1, 2016, dramatically changes the law by making it easier for employees to bring and prove pay discrimination claims.  Employers should evaluate their pay practices and records now to prepare for these changes. This webinar will discuss:

  • The law’s changes,
  • Its impact on employers’ pay practices and recordkeeping,
  • What employers can do now to prepare to defend against Fair Pay Act claims.

Register Now

Continue Reading Second Webinar Session Added: The California Fair Pay Act: Next Steps for Employers

Denying class certification in an action for alleged meal period violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001 (“Wage Order 5”), the California Court of Appeal ruled that a 24-hour residential care facility for developmentally disabled individuals did not have a policy that violated wage and hour laws common to the class members. Palacio v. Jan & Gail’s Care Homes, Inc. Specifically, the Court ruled that the residential care facility did not need to inform employees whom it required to waive their right to uninterrupted meal periods and eat their meals with the residents under Section 11(E) of Wage Order 5, that the employees could revoke the waiver at any time under Section 11(A). Continue Reading No Class Action for Residential Care Facility Employees Over On-Duty Meal Periods

Effective January 1, 2016, California employers face a Labor Commissioner with significantly enhanced authority to enforce judgments for unpaid wages under California’s Fair Day’s Pay Act.

The new law seeks to prevent “wage theft” by authorizing the Labor Commissioner to issue stop work orders against employers (and successor employers) who have judgments against them for nonpayment of wages, to issue levies against employers’ bank accounts and accounts receivable, and to place liens against employers’ real and personal property.

The law also imposes criminal and personal liability against certain individuals acting on behalf of an employer, including owners, officers, directors, or managing agents, for various Labor Code violations. The law’s key provisions are highlighted below.

Continue Reading California Labor Commissioner’s Enforcement Powers Set to Expand Dramatically

The California Court of Appeal ruled that an automobile dealership that translated a sales contract into Spanish, but neglected to include the arbitration clause in the translated agreement, could not enforce the arbitration agreement. Ramos v. Westlake Services, LLC, A141353. Although the case involved a commercial transaction, it has important implications for employers who use arbitration agreements with employees whose primary language is other than English. Continue Reading Inaccurate Translation Invalidates Arbitration Agreement

The California Supreme Court will decide if the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is unconstitutionally vague. In Connor v. First Student Inc., the Court of Appeal rejected an employer’s argument that the ICRAA was unconstitutional because the employer could not ascertain whether it was required to comply with it or the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The former governs background checks obtained from third party agencies concerning information pertaining to a consumer’s character, personal characteristics, general reputation or mode of living.  The second applies to reports containing information regarding a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit capacity or credit standing. Both Acts, however, refer to identical categories of information (for example, criminal histories, civil judgments and bankruptcies) when imposing limits on information that can be disclosed.  Continue Reading California Supreme Court to Decide if California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is “Unconstitutionally Vague”

Waiting time penalties imposed under Section 203 of the California Labor Code are not “wages” for purposes of federal income or employment taxes, according to a Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum issued by the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Memorandum is not precedential, it provides guidance regarding the IRS’s current views on the taxability of such payments. The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has long taken the position that waiting time penalties are not wages. Continue Reading Waiting Time Penalties Under California Labor Code Not Wages for Federal Tax Purposes

The incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses in California remain at their lowest level in 13 years, according to occupational injury and illness data released by the California Department of Industrial Relations. The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) data reflect a total of 460,000 reportable injury and illness cases in 2014, down from a total of 468,400 cases in 2013. In 2013 and 2014, the rate for cases involving lost work-time, job transfer, or restriction-from-duty cases (collectively, “lost work-time cases”) held steady at approximately 265,000, while cases involving days away from work fell from 146,800 to 142,800. Overall, the incidence of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in California remains at its lowest level in the past decade. Continue Reading California Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses Fall to Lowest Level in 13 Years

Employers’ risk of liability for the misclassification of workers continues to grow, as employee misclassification remains a top enforcement priority for the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), and class actions asserting misclassification claims are filed almost daily in federal and California state courts. Employers regularly using independent contractors should examine those relationships periodically to ensure that the classification remains defensible. Continue Reading Worker Misclassification Risk? Top 10 Questions to Ask about Your Independent Contractors

The California Court of Appeal reversed a $1 million judgment against the City of Los Angeles in a racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation case brought by a firefighter under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles. After 12 years of litigation and two jury trials, the Court ruled that the firefighter’s claims occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations period and that the “continuing violation” exception to the statute of limitations did not apply. Continue Reading Reversing $1 Million Judgment against Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeals Ruled Continuing Violation Doctrine did not apply to Firefighter’s Decades-Old Race Discrimination and Harassment Claims