|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE March 12, 2020 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) continues to prove a thorn in employers’ sides, as a recent California Supreme Court decision determined that an employee-plaintiff can still represent other employees and sue an employer on their behalf, even if the individual’s own claim is settled.
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE December 18, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In The Safeway Wage and Hour Cases, the California Court of Appeal revisited how to determine whether a manager’s duties qualify as exempt or nonexempt. Generally, the court identified two types of work that each qualify as exempt from overtime.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE February 6, 2020 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Ctr., the California Court of Appeal stated that an employee’s settlement of a wage and hour claim with a staffing agency does not prevent the employee from later suing the staffing agency’s client on the same wage and hour claims, where the settlement agreement does not expressly release the staffing agency’s clients.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE February 13, 2020 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court stated that employers must pay employees for time spent undergoing security checks before exiting the workplace. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal asked the California Supreme Court to decide the rule in this case two years ago. There, employees were required to clock out and then undergo a security check while still on the premises. The security check was extensive, requiring employees to open and take things out of their bags, and verify the serial numbers of their own Apple products. If they didn’t complete the security check, employees were disciplined. The Court stated that because the employer retained sufficient control over the employee during this process, it was considered working time that should have been compensated.
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Businesses with CA Independent Contractors |
EFFECTIVE As Indicated |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On January 1, 2020, AB 5 went into effect. It essentially codified the ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which implemented an ABC test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. However, the bill also broadened the application of the ABC test and add a slew of exemptions for certain types of workers under certain circumstances.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 31, 2020 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
As of January 1, 2020, AB 51 prohibited employers from requiring job applicants and employees to enter into arbitration agreements. However, on December 30, 2019, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing the bill while a request for preliminary injunction was reviewed. After extensive legal argument, on January 31, 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction with respect to arbitration agreements covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), preventing the bill from going into effect while its legality is resolved in court. On February 10, 2020, the court issued its ruling supporting the preliminary injunction. Employers with arbitration agreements that are not covered by the FAA (e.g., agreements with interstate truckers) are still subject to the terms of AB 51.
The legal community appears to uniformly indicate that this development means that employers subject to the FAA can continue to use mandatory arbitration agreements until further development in the federal court case challenging the bill. However, employers are recommended to consult with legal counsel on the best course of action before determining next steps.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2020 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO Employers of CA Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers |
EFFECTIVE January 13, 2020 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently granted a petition from the American Bus Association (ABA), stating that California’s meal and rest period rules are preempted by federal law, which governs passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle drivers’ hours of service requirements. Specifically, in contrast with prior challenges, the FMCSA said that state meal and rest period requirements are laws on commercial motor vehicle safety, which is regulated by federal law. Moreover, the meal and rest period rules have no safety benefit, are incompatible with federal regulations, and cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
While this may seem like a done deal, employers must still be cautious of enforcement of meal and rest period requirements in California. It is unclear if California will challenge FMCSA’s ruling, or what its next steps will be. Employers are strongly urged to consult with legal counsel before taking any steps that would violate state wage and hour laws. Continue to look for updates on this topic.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2020 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |