Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

On August 8, 2010, in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (pdf), the California Supreme Court held that employees do not have a private right of action under Labor Code § 351 to pursue remedies for misappropriated tips. The decision does not, however, address whether or not a cause of action for unfair competition may be predicated on Labor Code § 351, leaving employers exposed to unfair competition law (UCL) claims for providing tips to “agents” of the employer.

While the decision finally puts to rest the issue of whether the Legislature created a private cause of action under Labor Code § 351, employers should still carefully review their tip pooling policies. As a practical matter, this decision does not prevent employees from filing suit alleging a UCL cause of action based on Labor Code § 351. For a detailed discussion of this decision, please see Littler ASAP, “California Supreme Court Rejects Employees Right to Sue for Misappropriated Tips But Unfair Competition Law Cause of Action Remains" by Matthew Marca and Guissu Raffat.

This entry was written by Matthew Marca.

Photo credit: Thomas_EyeDesign

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The City of Austin, Texas recently passed an ordinance requiring that employers in the construction industry give employees a rest break of no less than 10 minutes for every four hours worked. The rest break must be scheduled as near as possible to the midpoint of the work period, and an employee may not work more than 3.5 hours without a rest break. Narrow in scope, the new ordinance applies only to employees performing construction activities at a construction site. An employee is not entitled to a rest break if he or she works less than 3.5 hours or spends more than half of his or her time engaged in non-strenuous work in a climate-controlled environment. Employers must post a sign (in English and Spanish) describing the rest break requirements in a conspicuous place or in areas where notices to employees are customarily posted. An employer that fails to give the required rest break or that fails to post the required sign can be found guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. The ordinance also provides for civil fines of $100 to $500 for each day a violation occurs. The ordinance does not expressly provide for a private right of action. Enacted on July 29, 2010, the ordinance amends Title 4 of the Austin City Code and becomes effective immediately upon enactment.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 30, 2010, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed Senate Bill 3568, the most extensive change to the state’s wage theft statute in decades. The amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2011, focuses on the following:

• Broader coverage;
• Efficient enforcement mechanisms;
• Enhanced civil and criminal penalties; and
• Increased protection from retaliation.
   

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides that time spent changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of the workday may be excluded from hours worked pursuant to the terms of, or custom or practice under a collective bargaining agreement. Many states impose their own wage and hour requirements, however. In Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Section 203(o) does not preempt state wage and hour law that does not contain an equivalent exception for time spent changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of the workday.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently issued a decision in which it unanimously concluded that a year-end bonus, the amount of which is discretionary, does not constitute wages under Connecticut’s wage and hour statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71a. Therefore, Connecticut’s private right of action for wages, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72, which provides for double damages and attorney’s fees, does not pertain to claims for discretionary bonuses.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New Hampshire recently amended its wage and hour law to permit employers to make deductions from employees’ wages for “legal plans and identity theft plans without financial advantage to the employer when the employee has given his or her written authorization and deductions are fully recorded.” The amendment becomes effective on August 13, 2010.

Although this amendment is modest in nature, it does clarify an issue that previously had confused many New Hampshire employers. Prior to this amendment, the New Hampshire Department of Labor had taken the position that employers could not make deductions from employees’ wages for legal services plans or identity theft plans, even though employees had voluntarily enrolled in those plans and authorized the requisite deductions, because these plans were not identified as permissible deductions under the state’s wage and hour law. This law makes clear that such deductions are now permissible.

This entry was written by Christopher Kaczmarek.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link