CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘Employment Law Blog (US)’ Category

Women On Board

Posted on: October 16th, 2018

By: Rebecca Smith

Nearly one-quarter of California-headquartered publicly held domestic or foreign corporations have no female directors.  No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, those companies will need to add at least one.  Senate Bill 826 (SB 826) signed by Governor Brown on September 30, 2018 has mandated this change.  And, if the board of directors of a corporation is larger than four board members, the required number of women on the board increases.  If the number of directors is six or more, the corporation must have a minimum of three directors, if the number of directors is five, the corporation shall have a minimum of two directors.  Corporations will be allowed until the close of the 2021 calendar year to add the additional female directors beyond one.

There is a strong likelihood that this new law will be challenged in the courts.  The first argument being made is that the law will displace an existing member of the board of directors solely on the basis of gender.  The new law has attempted to address this by indicating:  “A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.”  The argument being made is that the law focuses too narrowly on gender instead of other aspects of diversity, including race and sexual orientation.  The government may have to prove not only that there is disparity in board representation among men and women, but also that such a divide is a sufficient reason to create a special law for women.

The other issue in the forefront is to which companies the law will apply.  While the statute provides that the companies will be determined by the location of the principal executive offices according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, challenges are being made that the law should not apply to businesses headquartered in California, but incorporated elsewhere.  The new Section 2115.5 of the Corporations Code has attempted to address this issue by indicating that the new requirements shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a publicly held corporation to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign corporation is incorporated.  That being said, the “internal affairs doctrine” may provide a basis for the challenge.  The internal affairs doctrine, a choice of law rule in corporation law, provides that the internal affairs of a corporation will be governed by the corporate statutes and case law of the state in which the corporation is incorporated.

So what happens if a company does not comply:  A fine of $100,000 for a first violation, and a fine of $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation.  For purposes of imposing the fine, each director seat required by the section to be held by a female, which is not held by a female during at least a portion of the calendar year is considered a violation.  For the time being, California companies with their principal executive offices in California should start to think about how to comply with the law by the end of 2019 and stay tuned for any changes.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Rebecca Smith at [email protected].

As #MeToo Movement Takes Off, EEOC Sexual Harassment Claims Jump

Posted on: October 11th, 2018

By: Barry Brownstein

Since October 2017, when the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke and the #MeToo movement took off, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed 50 percent more sexual harassment lawsuits than it did the previous year and has seen a spike in the number of sexual harassment claims it has received. The EEOC filed 66 harassment lawsuits in fiscal 2018 of which 41 contained allegations of sexual harassment.  In addition, the EEOC recovered about $70 million for sexual harassment victims in fiscal 2018, compared with approximately $47 million it recovered in fiscal 2017.

According to the agency’s data, besides its own stepped up enforcement efforts, workers have also increasingly turned to the EEOC over the past year to report allegations of sexual harassment.  The number of charges filed by individuals alleging they were victims of workplace sexual harassment increased by 12 percent in fiscal 2018 from the prior year. The EEOC fielded 6,696 sexual harassment charges in fiscal 2017. A 12 percent increase of that figure indicates the agency fielded about 7,500 sexual harassment charges in the most recent fiscal year. That increase is the first time this decade the number of sexual harassment charges received by the EEOC has gone up from one fiscal year to the next.

Acting EEOC Chair Victoria Lipnic has ardently communicated the message that the EEOC has continued to lead the way to achieve the goal of reducing the level of harassment and promoting harassment-free workplaces. Consistent with that theme, the EEOC has also issued a report highlighting the various measures it took over the past 12 months to fight all forms of workplace harassment.  Such efforts include more than 1,000 outreach events, the development of “respectful workplaces” training seminars, and the creation of an internal “harassment prevention action team” to coordinate the agency’s anti-harassment efforts.

With sexual harassment claims soaring, employers should review their current training program, update it so it is consistent with the EEOC’s “respectful workplaces” training, and ensure all employees are provided with such training.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Brownstein at [email protected].

Ninth Circuit’s Decision Upholding Arbitration Clause Enables Uber To Sidestep Substantive Issues Regarding Misclassification

Posted on: October 10th, 2018

By: Laura Flynn

In O’Connor v. Uber, a case in which California Uber drivers assert they should be categorized as employees rather than independent contractors, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an order reversing the district court’s denial of Uber’s motions to compel arbitration. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion Uber’s arbitration agreements were unenforceable. The Court’s decision reversing the order denying arbitration was based on Mohamed v. Uber, 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir.  2016) wherein the Court found the relevant provisions delegated the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, that the delegation provisions were not adhesive and were therefore not procedurally unconscionable, and that the provisions allowing drivers to opt-out of arbitrations were not illusory. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ additional argument the arbitration agreements were unenforceable because they contained class action waivers that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 pointing to the recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). As the class certification by the district court was premised on its determination the arbitration agreements were unenforceable, the order certifying a class of approximately 160,000 Uber drivers was also reversed.

Based on the Court’s decision, it appears Uber drivers will have to purse their misclassification claims individually through arbitration. The limited pool of arbitrators, the amount of time it takes to arbitrate an individual claim, the smaller payout for attorneys, and lack of precedential value associated with arbitrations will likely discourage some drivers from pursuing their claims.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Laura Flynn at [email protected].

 

For further reading, see our blogs discussing this matter:

#MeToo Movement Leads to New California Laws

Posted on: October 9th, 2018

By: Gretchen Carner

California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law several work-related bills that will make it easier for workers to speak out about and sue over workplace sexual harassment.  The new laws codify a broader definition of sexual harassment that will make it easier for workers to bring and sustain harassment allegations in California courts, and block businesses from making workers sign nondisclosure agreements when they come on board, ask for raises or settle sex harassment suits, among other things.

California Government Code Section 12940 redefines sexual harassment and amends FEHA to make harassment legally actionable if it makes it harder for workers to do their jobs. The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2019, also tells judges to scrutinize employers’ motions for summary judgment on harassment claims. It also blocks businesses from giving workers raises or bonuses in exchange for their waiving FEHA claims or signing NDAs and makes it harder for businesses to win fees when they beat workers’ bias suits. Government Code section 12964.5 blocks businesses from making workers sign NDAs as conditions of sexual harassment settlements.

California lawmakers adopted an expansive definition of sexual harassment as outlined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 1993 concurring opinion in Harris v. Forklift Sys. (1993) 510 U.S. 17, in which she said that harassment is discriminatory conduct that could make a reasonable person who experienced it believe that it made it harder for them to do their job.  Section 12923 states harassment cases are “rarely appropriate for disposition on summary judgment” because a single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.  In addition, the new section instructs courts that the legal standard for sexual harassment “should not vary by type of workplace.”

While California law has previously required harassment prevention training of 2 hours for supervisors of employers with 50 or more employees every two years, revisions to the law now require employers with 5 OR MORE EMPLOYEES to provide the harassment training for supervisors and adds that non-supervisorial employees must now be trained.  (Government Code section 12950.1.)

Brown also signed a bill enacting Corporations Code section 301.3 which is aimed at giving women more say in corporate governance by making public, California-based businesses put one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 and as many as three by the end of 2021.  This statute will have a significant impact on dozens of public companies that have no women on their boards.  For a review of this new law in more detail, please see Rebecca Smith’s upcoming blog, Women On Board.

We anticipate much litigation over these new laws and will be keeping an eye on how the courts will enforce and interpret these statutes.  If you have any questions, please contact Gretchen Carner at [email protected].

Employment Arbitration Agreements are Still Alive in California, At Least For Now

Posted on: October 4th, 2018

By: Rebecca Smith

As Freeman Mathis & Gary brought out in its August 24, 2018 Blog by attorney Dave Daniels, the California Senate had voted to approve Assembly Bill 3080 (“AB 3080”) intended to combat the use of mandatory arbitration agreements and confidentiality clauses to prevent the public disclosure of workplace sexual harassment.  September 30, 2018 was the last day for Governor Brown to sign or veto legislation passed by the California Legislature this year.  Included in the last day of vetoes, Governor Brown vetoed AB 3080.

AB 3080 sought to amend the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Labor Code making it an unlawful employment practice to require an applicant, employee or independent contractor to agree to arbitrate claims arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code.  AB 3080 would also have added Section 432.4 to the Labor Code, which would have barred any person from prohibiting an applicant, employee, or independent contractor, “as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement,” from “disclosing to any person an instance of sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract.”

In returning the bill unsigned, Governor Brown pointed to several recent court decisions that invalidated state policies which unduly impede arbitration.  “The direction from the Supreme Court,” Governor Brown indicated “has been clear – States must follow the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act.”  “Since this bill plainly violates federal law,” Governor Brown indicated in this statement, “I cannot sign this measure.”

So, at least for the time being, California Employers are still able to use arbitration agreements as long as they are drafted with care.  Employers should review all arbitration agreements and practices to ensure that the agreements they are using will withstand challenge, or to update their agreement to comply with recent authorities addressing arbitration agreements.  Additionally, this will, in all likelihood not be the last challenge which will be made to arbitrations in the employment context in California as bills similar to AB3080 have previously been introduced and undoubtedly will be introduced again in the future.

If you have any questions or would like more information please contact Rebecca Smith at [email protected].