Posts

New Form W-4 Does Not Apply to All State Tax Withholding – Are You Using the Right Forms?

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In December 2019, the IRS issued a new Form W-4 to reflect the elimination of withholding allowances because individuals can no longer claim personal or dependency exemptions. While this was intended to allow for more accurate federal tax withholding calculations, it raises the question of what employers should do with respect to state tax withholding requirements.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Fair Credit Reporting Act Pre-Adverse Action Notice Is a Procedural Requirement and Not an Actionable Right

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 13, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Dutta v. State Farm, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that an employee did not have standing to sue a prospective employer for failing to comply with the pre-adverse action notice requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires employers to give applicants notice before they take any adverse employment action based on the results of a consumer report (e.g., credit report). This requirement is meant to give the applicant an opportunity to contest or correct information in the credit report. After providing such pre-adverse action notice and certain timing requirements are met, an employer may then take the adverse action if it still intends to do so.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Tribal Casinos Must Obey NLRA

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, and WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, even self-governed tribal land must obey the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  In National Labor Relations Board v. Casino Pauma, the circuit court stated that the casino violated the NLRA by attempting to limit protected union activity.

Under the NLRA, employees have the right to engage in specified protected activities relating to improving or discussing working conditions, free of employer retaliation or adverse action.  At Casino Pauma, operated by the Pauma Band of Mission Indians and located on the tribe’s reservation, a number of casino workers began distributing union leaflets to customers entering the casino.  The employees were originally removed by security.  When they attempted to distribute leaflets some weeks later, the employees were disciplined.

The NLRB filed a complaint on behalf of the employees.  An administrative law judge found that the casino violated the NLRA by attempting to interfere with protected union activities, and the circuit court agreed, stating that the NLRA applies to tribal employers.

Action Items

  1. Review the full text of the case here.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

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.

© 2018 ManagEase

Ninth Circuit Overrules Itself: Prior Salary History Cannot Justify Wage Differential Between Men and Women

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, OR, MT, NV, and WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 9, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In April 2017, the Ninth Circuit previously confirmed that employers could consider an individual’s prior salary history when justifying a wage differential.  Now, a year later, the circuit court has reversed its own decision, stating that prior salary history cannot be used to justify pay disparities prohibited by the federal Equal Pay Act.

Read more

CO, ID, UT: Recent Restrictive Covenants Updates in Colorado, Idaho, and Utah

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Certain Employers with Employees in CO, ID, UT

EFFECTIVE

Varies; See Below

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Colorado

On April 2, 2018, the Colorado governor signed SB 18-082, which amended state law related to physician noncompete agreements, allowing physicians to disclose their continuing practice and contact information to a patient with a rare disorder whom they have been providing treatment. This amendment is meant to avoid disruptions in treatment for patients with rare disorders. Review the recent bill here.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: DOL’s 80/20 Tip Credit Rule is Invalid

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers of AK, AZ, CA, GA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 6, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) permits employers to give a tip credit to tipped employees who spend no more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped duties. In Marsh v. J. Alexander’s, LLC, the Ninth Circuit noted that this rule is only found in the Field Operations Handbook used by the DOL as guidance for investigations by field officers, rather than in a statute or regulation; as a result, the court stated it was not valid.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Prior Salary History may be used to Justify Wage Differentials Between Men and Women

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI,
ID, MT, NV, OR and WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 27, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Rizo v. Yovino, a wage inequality claim brought under the federal Equal Pay Act.  In reviewing this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous case, Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co., and confirmed that prior salary history may be considered a “factor other than sex” for the purpose of justifying a wage differential.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Wage Rates Used for Overtime Hours Cannot Be Lower Than Those Used for Non-Overtime Hours

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 21, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., the Ninth Circuit stated that wage rates cannot be decreased in weeks when overtime is worked, as compared to weeks when no overtime is worked. There, two cable technicians were paid a piece rate per cable system installed, plus a contractually-based production bonus each pay period as part of their regular wages.  When the employer calculated overtime, it reduced the production bonus by the amount of overtime paid for piece rate work, which meant that employees received lower wage rates than when they did not work overtime.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Car Dealership Service Advisors Not Exempt from FLSA

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI,
ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 9, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

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.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Disclosures for Background Checks Cannot Contain a Liability Waiver

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI,
ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 20, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

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.

Read more