California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for a business with ten or more employees to expose a person in California to a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” or “reproductive harm” without providing a clear and reasonable warning.
Department of Labor proposes new federal overtime exemption standard, and what California employers need to remember
Published on Tue, 03/26/2019 - 10:31pm
As we previously reported, over the past several years, the Department of Labor (DOL) has been attempting to update its minimum salary requirements for the federal white collar overtime exemptions. Back in June 2015, the Department of Labor under the Obama administration proposed new standards that were scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2016. But in November of 2016, as a result of numerous legal challenges to the new rule, a court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking it, and in September 2017, a federal judge struck it down entirely. In July 2017, the new administration directed the DOL to institute additional fact-finding for updated salary rules, and on March 7, 2019, the DOL announced the new proposed rules.
Staying on top of the myriad of protected characteristics under employment discrimination laws
Published on Tue, 03/26/2019 - 10:31pm
Although the principles of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity have been ingrained in law and employment policies for decades, the continual evolution of employment discrimination law calls for employers to regularly review and update their EEO policies, including the ever-expanding list of protected characteristics.
As we reported last year, the Dynamex v. Superior Court case “radically modified the test for determining whether someone working for a business is an employee or independent contractor.” Early indications are that leading gig economy employers remain unsure how to resolve treatment of individuals who do not neatly fit the traditional definition of either employee or independent contractor.
Being an employer in California is increasingly challenging. In the last few years, new laws have emerged that present additional risks to employers, not just with respect to employees, but also with respect to job applicants.
Recently, the Ninth Circuit in Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC, held the FCRA’s “standalone document” and “clear and conspicuous” requirement means the FCRA disclosure, even if electronic, must be a separate form that cannot include any “extraneous information” (for example, including a liability release in a FCRA disclosure and an at-will employment disclaimer are prohibited). It also clarified that multi-state disclosure forms, containing disclosures from multiple states, are not compliant.
Employees may not reach outside payroll service with unpaid wage claims
Published on Mon, 03/04/2019 - 11:58pm
Many employers use outside payroll services to perform the important functions of processing payroll-related data and issuing employee paychecks. Recently, in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an employee can sue an outside payroll service company for errors in the employee’s pay. In that case, an employee who alleged unpaid wages, brought claims for breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against his employer’s outside payroll service provider. Although there was no employment relationship between the payroll service and the employee for unpaid wages under the Labor Code, the employee brought his claims based on the third party beneficiary doctrine, under which an individual or entity that is not a party to a contract (i.e., the third party) may bring a breach of contract action against a party to the contract if that individual or entity establishes that it is likely to benefit from the contract, that a motivating purpose of the contracting parties is to provide a benefit to the third party, and that permitting the third party to bring its own breach of contract action against a contracting party is consistent with the objectives of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.