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

Posts Tagged ‘employment’

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.

California’s Protecting Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB-450)

Posted on: January 11th, 2018

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

On October 5, 2017 Governor Brown signed AB-450 into law further taking California into the federal immigration landscape.  The new State law took effect on January 1, 2018.

Here are some key elements:

  1. Employers no longer can voluntarily grant access to nonpublic areas of the company to any immigration enforcement agent.  Access can only be granted when presented with a judicial warrant.
  2. The new law does not restrict Department of Homeland Security from providing a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to an employer demanding the employer’s I-9 forms within 3 days of service.  The employer must honor the NOI.
  3. If a NOI is received, the employer must post a notice at the worksite, in the language the employer normally uses to communicate information with employees, within 72 hours of receipt.  The notice must communicate the following:
    1. [Name of Issuing authority] has issued a Notice of Inspection and will be conducting an inspection of Employee Form I-9s or other employment records;
    2. Date of receipt of NOI
    3. The “nature of the inspection” – to the extent known by the employer.
  4. Give notice to the “employee’s authorized representative” (any collective bargaining representative), if any, within 72 hours of the receipt of the NOI.
  5. Provide a copy of the NOI to any “affected employee” upon reasonable request.
  6. Notify “affected employees” within 72 hours of the agency’s inspection results as well as written notice of the obligations of the employer and employee arising from the inspection.
  7. Employers are prohibited from reverifying the employment eligibility of any current employee at a time or manner not required by law or that would violate employer’s E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding.
  8. Penalties: First offense – $2,000 -$5,000 / each subsequent offense – $5,000-$10,000.

We expect that the Department of Homeland Security will conduct more inspections this year.  It would be beneficial for California employers to have policies in place to handle these situations if they should arise.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

Recent Affirmance of the Going and Coming Rule

Posted on: November 21st, 2017

By: Owen Rooney

In Morales-Simental v. Genentech, California’s First District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the employer, thus rejecting plaintiff’s attempts to expand on the special errand exception to going and coming rule. (No. A145865). The employee was involved in a fatal auto accident at 3:30 a.m. while driving his personal auto. The employee told the investigating officer he was going to work on his night off to pick up resumes for upcoming job interviews. The employee testified he was going to work to pick up some resumes and personal belongings on his way to visit his grandmother. He also testified that he was going to pick up the resume of his unemployed friend who had allegedly asked for a job recommendation. However, the friend denied this.

One exception to the going and coming rule is if the employee is on a “special errand” at the employer’s behest. Plaintiff argued that because the employee involved in this accident was “a supervisorial employee tasked with hiring” who “had authority to act on [the employer’s] behalf,” he could “request himself to complete a special errand connected” to his task. The court rejected this theory, holding that “such reasoning would expand the special errand rule to allow employees at various levels to request special errands of themselves on behalf of their employers, thereby stripping the employer of the ability to control when it will be liable for an employee’s off-shift activities.”

Plaintiff also argued that the “special errand” exception applied because the employee was sent work emails before the accident, and so may have been coming into work to respond. The court rejected this argument as well because the emails “did not require [the employee] to come in at a specific day or time” – much less 3:55 a.m. when the accident occurred.

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

Upcoming Changes to Form I-9 for Employment Eligibility

Posted on: October 12th, 2012

By: Kelly Morrison

United States is once again proposing changes to the standard I-9 eligibility form.  The commentary period on the amended form is open until October 15, 2012, at which time USCIS will evaluate suggestions and issue an implementation date for the new form.