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

Archive for the ‘Employment Law Blog – CA’ Category

AB5: California’s Controversial Gig-Work Law Took Effect January 1, 2020

Posted on: January 7th, 2020

By:  Margot Parker

As of January 1, 2020, California’s AB5 may require employers to reclassify hundreds of thousands of independent contractors as employees with broad labor law protections.  The new law codifies the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles in 2018.  Under the ABC test, a worker may only be classified as an independent contractor if it can be shown that:

A. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity, both under the contract for the performance of work and in fact;

B. The worker performs work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and

C. The worker is engaged in independently established trade, occupation, or business that is of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

This strict three-pronged test now applies to the requirements of the California Labor Code and the California Unemployment Insurance Code.  Beginning July 1, 2020, it will also apply to the California Workers Compensation Code.

While the law provides exemptions for certain occupations and industries (including accountants, architects, dentists, insurance brokers, lawyers, and engineers), the Legislature declined to exempt app-based ride services and food delivery companies, whose workers complain they often earn less than minimum wage.  Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart are mounting a ballot initiative to exempt their workers, while trucking associations, photographers, and freelance journalists have brought other initiatives opposing the law.

Given such controversy, the law’s author intends to introduce additional legislation to clarify AB5 this year.  In the meantime, employers should consult with legal counsel and review independent contractor classifications to ensure proper classification of workers pursuant to the ABC test.

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

Federal Court Temporarily Enjoins California’s Ban On Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

Posted on: January 7th, 2020

By: Brad Adler

Employers will recall that California passed a law in October, 2019 (AB 51) that would limit the ability of employers to require mandatory arbitration of certain statutory employment claims as of January 1, 2020.  Specifically, AB 51 provided that employers could no longer require, as a condition of employment, that a job applicant or employee arbitrate any alleged violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code.  After AB 51 was passed, a coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit seeking to block AB 51 from taking effect.

On December 30, 2019, Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California granted a temporary restraining order in response to that lawsuit, which effectively blocks AB 51 from going into effect until the Court holds a preliminary injunction hearing on January 10, 2020.  At the January 10 hearing, the Court will decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would block implementation of AB 51 until the case is fully resolved.  As a result of the Court’s temporary restraining order, at least as of right now, it still is lawful to continue requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements.  But please be aware that the lawsuit challenging AB 51 is moving quickly so employers with California employees should continue to monitor this lawsuit.

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

Holiday Office Parties: Serving Up Both Cheer … and Fear!

Posted on: December 3rd, 2019

By: Melissa Whitehead

There is no doubt that the Holiday Season is in full swing – and that means workplace holiday parties! While these festive events are great for increasing workplace camaraderie and celebrating achievements of the year, they are more well known for the high risk of inappropriate behavior. Somehow, companies that spend all year working to create a positive, healthy and respectful workplace find themselves on a Monday morning in December, calling counsel to ask for guidance in addressing some incident that happened at the office holiday party over the weekend. Here are some tips and things to think about, in hopes that your company can avoid making that dreaded call to counsel that begins with, “So, we had our office holiday party on Friday and…”

To Serve Alcohol or Not to Serve? Alcohol consumption at office parties creates a number of risks for the employer. First, if an employee consumes too much alcohol at the party and makes the poor choice to drive home and gets in an accident, the employer in many states (including California) can be found liable for any damage caused by that employee (including injury to others). Further, and more common, alcohol lowers inhibitions and can make employees feel more comfortable saying and doing things that they would otherwise never do or say in the workplace. This is why holiday parties are a common ground for #MeToo moments and similar issues.

That said, the reality is that most workplaces will serve alcohol at their office parties. Some tips for reducing the risks that come with serving alcohol include: (1) have a bartender or server serving drinks (as opposed to an open bar); (2)  enforce a 2-drink limit per attendee (e.g., drink tickets); (3) pay for transportation home from the party or overnight accommodations; and (4) designate an executive or HR professional to “cut off” attendees that appear over-served. It is also a good idea to send a notice to employees in advance of the party, reminding them that the company’s anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and rules against hostile work environment are all still in full force and effect during the office party.

To Pay or Not to Pay? Another common question is whether employees must be paid for their time at the holiday party. This generally boils down to whether attendance is mandatory. If an employee is required to attend the party, in most states it will likely be considered “time worked” and subject to minimum wage and overtime rules. This issue can be addressed by holding the party during normal working hours and paying employees for their time as with any other workday. Alternatively, employers should make clear that attendance is optional.

Of course, this blog does not raise or address all risks that come with the workplace holiday party, but following these helpful tips will help you avoid becoming the next viral sensation of the holiday season! Happy holidays!

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

Dear California Legislature the Constitution Prohibits Ex Post Facto Laws

Posted on: June 10th, 2019

By: David Molinari

If you have practiced law in the State of California for an appreciable period of time you become numb to warnings from out-of-state clients and counsel bemoaning enactments by the state’s legislature that will doom business and cause exodus of industries from the state. We are a resilient people, capable of prospering despite the “well-intentioned” actions of the state’s governing bodies.  However, did the State Assembly really intend to draft a bill that violates California Constitution Article 1, Section 9 prohibiting ex post facto laws with California Assembly Bill 5, adding Labor Code 2750.3?

Assembly Bill 5 seeks to codify the recent California Supreme Court decision of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018.). In the Dynamex case, the State Supreme Court virtually eliminated the status of independent contractor. The California Supreme Court adopted an “ABC” test for determining whether workers are employees under California Wage Order laws. The test requires the hiring entity establish three elements to disprove employment status: (A) That the worker is free from control of the hiring entity in connection with work performance-both under the contract and in fact; (B) That the worker performs work outside the hiring entity’s usual business; and (C) That the worker is customarily engaged in an independent business of the same nature as the work performed.

Under Assembly Bill 5, the legislature seized on the ability to expand the categories of individuals eligible to receive benefits by creating a legislative instrument that would result in additional monies being deposited into the state via continuously appropriated funding from an expanded pool of employers. The Bill seeks to codify the Dynamex decision. But the legislature simply adopted the Supreme Court’s opinion which includes retroactive application. The legislative findings clearly show a financial purpose behind codifying Dynamex: The loss to the state of revenues from companies that use “misclassified” workers to avoid payment of payroll taxes, premiums for workers’ compensation, Social Security, unemployment and disability insurances. The Assembly clearly did not overlook or ignore retroactive application of Dynamex may subject this new pool of employers to criminal penalties they currently are not exposed to suffering. The Assembly in its findings concluded: Assembly Bill 5 “Would expand the definition of a crime.”

The Supreme Court held applying Dynamex retroactively was consistent with due process because the Court was “merely extending” principles previously stated in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3rd 341 (1989) and represented “no greater surprise than tort decisions that routinely apply retroactively.” The holding has been cited for authority for retroactive application by the 9th Circuit in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising as well as the State Courts of Appeal including the 4th District, Division 1 in Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC, 28 Cal. App. 5th 558.

Codification of Dynamex threatens to create an ex post facto law that expands exposure to criminal penalties. Thus, it would seem to be in violation of California Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 that the legislature shall not pass ex post facto laws.  For example, the new pool of employers will be immediately subject to prosecution under California Labor Code Section 3700.5. Labor Code Section 3700.5 makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 or both, for any entity that fails to secure workers’ compensation insurance. A second or subsequent conviction is punishable by imprisonment for up to a year and a fine of not less than $50,000.00.

Article 1, Section 9 has been applied to past employment-related legislation; but only with respect to the Article’s prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contract. The language of Article 1, Section 9 appears unambiguous and absolute. However, prior challenges have run into judicial interpretation that the Article may not be read literally and the prohibitions of Article 1, Section 9 may not be absolute; at least with respect to the impairment of contracts. The clause “is not to be read with literal exactness like a mathematical formula.” Torrance v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 32 Cal.3rd 371 (1982).

The guidelines for determining the constitutionality of a statute imposing an ex post facto criminal penalty applies a presumption against retrospective application unless the legislature expresses such specific intent. The legislature’s findings expressly stated Assembly Bill 5 “would expand the definition of a crime.” Is that enough of a legislative expression of intent even though the State Supreme Court only referenced civil “tort decisions” to justify retroactive application? Maybe we shouldn’t be numb to those warnings any longer.

For more information, please contact David Molinari at [email protected].

Are You Prepared To Grant Intermittent Family Medical Leave?

Posted on: May 14th, 2019

By: David Daniels

One of the biggest employer complaints about the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is the productivity problems caused by employees’ use—and abuse—of FMLA intermittent leave.

The problem: Employees with chronic health problems often take FMLA leave in short increments of an hour or less.

The Department of Labor (DOL) took a big step to help minimize workplace disruptions due to unscheduled FMLA absences in its revised regulations, which took effect in 2009. The DOL says that, in most cases now, employees who take FMLA intermittent leave must follow their employers’ call-in procedures for reporting an absence, unless there are unusual circumstances.

Tracking Intermittent FMLA Leave

Even though managing FMLA intermittent leave can be vexing, the law does give employers some tools to combat leave abuse.

As with leave taken in one block, employees requesting FMLA intermittent leave must provide his or her employer with notice. Employees must give at least 30 days’ notice when their need for FMLA leave is foreseeable. When it’s not, they must notify you “as soon as practicable.”

A. Certify and schedule the leave.

Don’t accept FMLA requests at face value. The law gives employers the right to demand certification from the employee’s doctor of his or her need for leave. An employer can request new medical certification from the employee at the start of each FMLA year. The law also entitles an employer to ask for a second or third opinion, if necessary, before granting leave.

When employees have chronic conditions and their certifications call for FMLA intermittent leave, an employer should attempt to work out leave schedules as far in advance as possible. It’s legal to try to schedule FMLA-related absences, but an employer can’t deny them.

It’s important to immediately nail down the expected frequency and duration of FMLA intermittent leave. An employer can insist on a medical provider’s estimate of how often the employee will need time off. An employer also can wait until the provider gives an estimate to approve intermittent leave.

B. Intermittent Leave Tips.

  • Ask about the specific condition. Medical certification must relate only to the serious health condition that is causing the leave. An employer can’t ask about the employee’s general health or other conditions.
  • Allow 15 days to respond. After an employer requests certification, the employer should give employees at least 15 calendar days to submit the paperwork. If the employee’s medical certification is incomplete or insufficient, specify in writing what information is lacking and allow the employee seven days to cure the deficiency.
  • If an employer doubts the need for leave, it should investigate the certification. Under the updated FMLA regulations, the employer can contact the employee’s physician directly to clarify the medical certification. The employer’s contact person can be a health care provider, a human resources professional, a leave administrator (including third-party administrators) or a management official, but not the employee’s direct supervisor.
  • If an employer is still not convinced, it can require (and pay for) a second opinion. The employer should use an independent doctor who it selects, not a doctor who works for the employer. If the two opinions conflict, an employer can pay for a third and final, binding medical opinion.

Employees who take FMLA intermittent leave can wreak havoc with work schedules. Because their conditions can flare up at any time, their absences are by nature unpredictable. But there are ways you can legally curtail intermittent leave.

C. Use the Calendar-year Method.

Employees who take FMLA intermittent leave can wreak havoc with work schedules. Because their conditions can flare up at any time, their absences are by nature unpredictable. But there are ways you can legally curtail intermittent leave.

One way is to use the calendar-year method to set FMLA leave eligibility.

Here’s how it works. Sometime during the calendar year, an employee submits medical documentation showing she will need intermittent leave for a chronic condition. If she is eligible for leave at that time, she can take up to 12 weeks of intermittent leave until the end of the calendar year.

Then the process starts again.

If, on Jan. 1, she hasn’t worked 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months, she’s no longer eligible—and won’t be eligible again until she hits 1,250 hours.

Final tip:  Employees who are approved for FMLA intermittent leave can take that time off as needed. But that doesn’t mean an employer isn’t entitled to some supporting documentation for each absence. An employer can ask for proof that the absence was for the chronic condition—but a simple doctor’s note to that effect should suffice. No new formal certification is required.

Wait until the end of your FMLA leave year to get the new intermittent-leave certification.

This is only a short primer on FMLA leave laws which can be a trap for the unwary employer. David Daniels the managing partner of the FMG Sacramento office. Please feel free to contact him at (916) 765-2570 ([email protected]) should you wish to further discuss the FMLA or any other areas of employment law at your convenience.