|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, |
EFFECTIVE January 9, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
We previously reported on Navarro v. Encino Motorcars, LLC, wherein a group of service advisors at an auto dealership alleged that they did not receive owed overtime compensation. At that time, the Ninth Circuit decided to defer to the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to determine how the FLSA statutes apply to auto dealership service advisors.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, |
EFFECTIVE January 20, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On January 20, 2017, in Syed v. M-I, LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”) cannot also contain a liability waiver for conducting the background check in the same document. Rather, only the disclosure notice and background authorization can be contained within the same document. Having other language in the disclosure notice violates background check rules under the FRCA.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE December 9, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The California Court of Appeals recently confirmed that employees may round timecard entries to the nearest tenth of an hour. In Silva v. See’s Candy Shop, Inc., a former employee brought a class action lawsuit challenging some of See’s timekeeping practices: rounding time card entries up or down to the nearest tenth (six minutes) of an hour, and a grace period in which employees could punch in or out up to 10 minutes before or after their scheduled shift, respectively. Employees were not to perform work during this grace period and were not paid for time spent punched in during the grace period. Rather, employees were intended to use such grace period time for personal activities.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE December 22, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court stated that the Labor Code and Wage Order 4 require employers to give employees off-duty rest periods, including relieving employees of all duties and relinquishing control over how employees spend their time. As a result, the Supreme Court stated that on-call rest periods are also prohibited, because on-call “status compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action.” In Augustus, security guard employees were required “to keep their radios and pagers on during rest breaks, to remain vigilant, and to respond when needs arise.”
|
APPLIES TO Varies; See Below |
EFFECTIVE Varies; See Below |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
A number of states’ and localities’ minimum wage rates will increase in 2017. Below is a chart of upcoming wage increases.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with California Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
AB 2883 revises the definition of “employee” in workers’ compensation insurance policies, adding officers, directors, and working members of partnerships and limited liability companies. Currently, such individuals are generally not required to be covered under a business’s workers’ compensation policy. Under AB 2883, such workers will be generally required to be covered; a narrow exclusion permits certain individuals to opt out by signing and filing a waiver with the insurance carrier.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with California Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
A new California Labor Code provision limits employment contract provisions that dictate when another state’s law or location will be used to adjudicate employment disputes for employees who primarily live and work in California. This law applies to contracts entered into, modified or extended on or after January 1, 2017, and to contracts that employees are required to assign as a condition of employment.
|
APPLIES TO All Private Employers with at least five California Employees |
EFFECTIVE Varies; see below |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
SB 1234 will require all California private employers with at least five employees, who do not offer their own retirement plan, to enroll their workers into the state-run California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which will operate like a 401(k). The retirement fund will be overseen by a state board and administered by private companies that have not yet been selected. Employees are expected to be able to enroll and start investing money in 2018.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with 50+ San Francisco, CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Earlier this year, we reported on San Francisco’s bill requiring 6 weeks of fully paid parental leave. The Paid Parental Leave Ordinance (“PPLO”) was recently amended to provide clarity on an employer’s obligations for supplementing compensation.