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

Posts Tagged ‘employment’

Employers Should Consider “Prevailing Party” Language In Arbitration Clauses

Posted on: March 13th, 2019

By: Ken Menendez

Employers seeking to discourage frivolous claims by employees may wish to consider utilizing a “prevailing party” clause as part of their agreement to arbitrate.

Many employers utilize arbitration as a means of avoiding the generally greater cost and uncertainty of litigation in employment cases. Agreements to arbitrate are even more prevalent in employment agreements with highly compensated or professional employees.

One of the advantages of arbitration is the ability of the parties to the agreement to establish the rules governing the arbitration and arbitration award. In addition to procedural and logistical guidelines, the parties to an arbitration agreement may also authorize the arbitrator or arbitrators to award the costs, including attorney’s fees, of the arbitration to the prevailing party in the arbitration.

Such a clause might read as follows:

The arbitrators shall award the costs and expenses of the arbitration, including attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party as determined by the arbitrators in their discretion.

A “prevailing party clause” such as the foregoing may reduce the number of baseless claims against an employer, as potential claimants will have to weigh the risk of paying the employer’s costs in the event that the arbitrators rule that the employer was the prevailing party.

The foregoing arbitration clause requires the award of costs to the prevailing party. The drafters of the clause could, if they wished to do so, also make the award of costs discretionary simply by changing the word “shall” to “may.” It is also important to note that the foregoing clause requires the arbitrators to determine which party is the prevailing party. Because many employment cases contain both claims and counterclaims, placing the responsibility for identifying the prevailing party on the arbitrators eliminates subsequent disputes between the parties regarding which party was the prevailing party.

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

Department of Labor Unveils Its Long-Awaited Proposed Overtime Rule

Posted on: March 11th, 2019

By: Brad Adler

On March 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its long-awaited proposed rule that would revise the white collar overtime exemption regulations.  In its proposed rule, the DOL proposed raising the minimum annual salary for exempt status from $23,360 to $35,308 (an increase in the weekly rate from $455 to $679).  This is a significantly smaller increase than the increase that had been adopted by the DOL in 2016 ($47,476 per year) while President Obama was in office.  Of course, a court blocked that increase from taking effect.

Like the 2016 final rule, the DOL’s new proposal would allow employers to satisfy up to 10% of the $35,308 minimum salary requirement by the payment of nondiscretionary bonuses, incentives and commissions.  Notably, however, while the 2016 rule required that the bonuses be paid at least quarterly, the new proposal contemplates that they can be paid annually (or more frequently if desired).  Specifically, employers would have one catch-up period at the end of a 52-week period to make up any shortfall in the employee’s salary to bring it up to the required minimum.

As a result of this proposed provision, the employer could pay the employee a guaranteed minimum salary of $611.10 per week (90% of the weekly salary) and, if bonus and incentive compensation do not bring the person up to the minimum salary level by the end of the year, the employer would have one chance to make up the difference.

In addition to increasing the minimum salary, the DOL also proposed increasing the minimum annual compensation to qualify for the FLSA’s “highly compensated employee” exemption, from $100,000 to $147,414 (of which, at least $679 per week must be paid on a guaranteed salary or fee basis).

The public will have 60 days to submit comments on the proposed rule, but the rule ultimately is expected to take effect on January 1, 2020.

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

What Are The Ethical Rules For Legal Blogs In California?

Posted on: February 1st, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

If you are a California lawyer and are thinking about starting a blog, keep these points in mind:

  1. Blogging by an attorney may be a communication subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act relating to lawyer advertising if the blog expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment directly through words of invitation or offer to provide legal services, or implicitly through its description of the type and character of legal services offered by the attorney, detailed descriptions of case results, or both.
  2. A blog that is an integrated part of an attorney’s or law firm’s website will be a communication subject to the rules and statutes regulating attorney advertising to the same extent as the website of which it is a part.
  3. A stand-alone blog by an attorney, even if discussing legal topics within or outside the authoring attorney’s area of practice, is not a communication subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act relating to lawyer advertising unless the blog directly or implicitly expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment.
  4. A stand-alone blog by an attorney on a non-legal topic is not a communication subject to the rules and statutes regulating attorney advertising and is not subject thereto simply because the blog contains a link to the attorney or law firm’s professional website. However, extensive and/or detailed professional identification information announcing the attorney’s availability for professional employment will itself be a communication subject to the ethical rules and statutes.

See California Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 and 7.2 and Business and Professions Code sections 6157-6159.2; State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0006.

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

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].

Navigating New California Employment Laws

Posted on: February 1st, 2018

By: David Daniels

Are you and your clients doing business in California prepared for the new employment laws that take effect in 2018? If you represent employers in the state of California, these laws may very well affect the daily operations of their business. Unless specified, all new legislation outlined below went into effect on January 1, 2018.  As explained more fully below, I strongly encourage you to review your client’s employee handbooks and job applications to ensure compliance with the new 2018 employment statutes.

 

  • Stop asking about salary history –  AB 168 bars employers from asking job applicants about their previous salary. The legislation’s goal is to narrow the gender gap by preventing employers from basing offers on prior salary and thus, presumably, perpetuating historical discrimination. This will also remove the perceived gap in negotiating power between an employers and employees who must disclose their prior salary. Employers should ensure that their job applications don’t seek prohibited information and that those interviewing applicants know not to ask these questions.  I encourage all employers to review their written and/or on-line employment contracts to determine if the applicant is requested to state their salary history in the “Previous Experience” sections of the applications.  It is common practice to ask the applicant about their salary history in these sections of the application.  This practice must stop before January 1, 2018 in order to be compliant with California law.

 

  • More employers must offer parenting leave – SB 63, officially titled the Parental Leave Act, requires employers with between 20 and 49 employees to offer parenting leave that mirrors the Family Medical Leave Act. The new Act allows employees who work for a covered employer to take 12-weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave if they have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours in the 12-months prior to taking leave.  Employees can take leave only for the purpose of bonding with a newborn child, adopted child or foster child within a year of the birth or placement. Covered employers will also need to maintain health coverage under the same terms as an active employee. The Act also prohibits discrimination and retaliation against an employee for taking parental leave. The Parental Leave Act does not require employers to pay any portion of the leave but requires that employees be able to use accrued sick and vacation time. Employees can apply to have a portion of the parental leave paid for through the state’s Paid Family Leave program.  Please note that, San Francisco requires some employers to pay a remaining portion of parental leave.

 

  • Expanded harassment training – California requires at least biannual harassment training for supervisors in companies with 50 or more employees. Having given a dozen sessions of the  training in the last month, I can assure you that there’s no shortage of material to talk about. But as of January 1, 2018, SB 396 requires that the training include information on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. If your handbook doesn’t specifically prohibit discrimination and harassment on those bases, you’re overdue for a revision.

 

  • Ban the box – Following the leads of San Francisco and Los Angeles, AB 1008 prohibits employers with five or more employees from:
    • Asking on employment applications about criminal convictions;
    • Asking applicants about criminal convictions before making a conditional offer of employment;
    • When conducting background checks on applicants, considering, distributing, or disseminating information about prior arrests not leading to conviction, participation in diversion programs, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or otherwise nullified.

 

Employers who wish to rely on criminal conviction information to withdraw a conditional job offer must notify the applicant of their preliminary decision, give them a copy of the report (if any), explain the applicants right to respond, give them at least five business days to do so, and then wait five more business days to decide when an applicant contests the decision. There are exceptions for employers who operate health facilities hiring employees who will have regular access to patients or drugs.

 

  • Minimum Wage Increases – On January 1, 2018, the California state minimum wage goes up to $11.00 per hour for businesses with 26 or more employees and $10.50 per hour for smaller companies.

 

  • Worksite Immigration Enforcement and Protections, AB 450 – The Immigrant Worker Protection Act shields workers from immigration enforcement while on the job. The legislation prohibits employers from providing federal immigration enforcement agents access to a business without a warrant and requires employers to notify employees of Form I-9 inspections performed by federal immigration enforcement officials.

 

  • Gender Identification: Female, Male or Nonbinary, SB 179 – This new law, which goes into effect on September 1, 2018, allows California residents to choose from three equally recognized gender options — female, male or nonbinary — on state-issued identification cards, birth certificates and driver’s licenses.

 

  • Employment Discrimination: Gender Neutral Language, AB 1556 – This law is a revision to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act which deletes gender-specific personal pronouns in the state’s anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, pregnancy disability and family/ medical leave laws by changing “he” or “she,” for example, to “the person” or “the employee.”

 

  • LGBT Rights for Long-Term Care Facility Residents, SB 219 – Called the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights. The new law will strengthen anti-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals living in long-term care facilities, making it unlawful to willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronoun or to deny admission to a long-term care facility because of gender identity or sexual orientation. You must post a notice about the protections and follow recordkeeping requirements.

 

  • Human Trafficking, AB 260 – This new law extends the list of businesses that must post human trafficking information notices to include hotels, motels and bed and breakfast inns. In addition, SB 225 requires the human trafficking notice include a new number for those who wish to send text messages. Businesses are not required to post the updated notice until on or after January 1, 2019.

 

  • Anti-Discrimination Protections for Veterans, AB 1710 – This law will expand the current protections for members of the armed services. AB 1710 prohibits discrimination in all “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment.

 

  • Health Facilities: Whistleblower Protections, AB 1102 – increases the maximum fine for a violation of whistleblower protections in healthcare facilities from $20,000 to $75,000.

 

  • Harassment Prevention Training: Farm Labor Contractors, SB 295
    This bill requires sexual harassment prevention training for each agricultural employee provided in the language understood by that employee in order to apply for or renew a license. The bill also requires an employer provide to the commissioner the total number of agricultural employees trained in sexual harassment prevention in the calendar year prior to the month the renewal application is submitted.

 

  • Labor Law Enforcement, Retaliation, SB 306 – This allows the Labor Commissioner to investigate an employer with or without a complaint from an employee as long as the Labor Commissioner suspects retaliation or discrimination against a worker.

 

  • Increased Liability for Construction Contractors, AB 1701 – This law pertains to private construction contracts entered into after January 1, 2018. It imposes liability onto the general contractor for any unpaid wages, benefits or contributions that a subcontractor owes to a laborer who performed work under the contract.

 

Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] should you wish to further discuss any of these new laws and/or how to best change your policies and practices to ensure compliance with California law.