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

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held that the City of Oakland, California did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) when it required its police officers to repay the City for the cost of their training if they voluntarily resigned before completing five years of employment. (Gordon v. Oakland, No. 09-16167 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2010)).

In Gordon, the City and the bargaining unit for its police officers had entered into an agreement which required police officers to repay the City a pro rata share of their police academy training costs if they voluntarily separated from the City’s employment prior to completing five years of service. For example, a police officer who resigned after one year of service would have to repay 80% of the training costs whereas a police officer resigning after four years of service would only have to repay 20%. A police officer who resigned after five years of service would owe nothing to the City for training cost reimbursement. The agreement further provided that any repayment would be due at the time of the officer’s separation and that the City could deduct amounts due from the officer’s final paycheck.
 

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court dealt another blow to California employers in Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. In a unanimous opinion, the Court announced that the penalties recoverable under section 203 of the California Labor Code are subject to a three-year statute of limitations rather than a one-year statutory period, irrespective of whether the employee seeks to recover unpaid pages along with the penalties.

Under section 203, if an employer willfully fails to timely pay final wages to an employee after termination or resignation, the employee is entitled to a penalty in the amount of a day’s wages for each day the wages remain unpaid, to a maximum of 30 days. Following a review of the statutory language, legislative history, and public policy underlying section 203, the Supreme Court ruled that all section 203 penalties are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, as specified within the statute itself. With this decision, the California Supreme Court increases the potential for wage and hour class actions seeking section 203 penalties alone, as such cases can now clearly be brought as much as three years after the alleged failure to timely final wages.

This entry was written by Dominic Messiha and Lauren Howard.

• Print
• Share Link

In a case of first impression, a California court of appeal held in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, No. B220016 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2010) that the “suitable seats” provision of Wage Order 7-2001 may be enforced through the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. (PAGA).

Plaintiff’s Complaint and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Eugina Bright, filed a class action complaint against her former employer 99¢ Only Stores. The plaintiff alleged that while employed as a cashier at 99¢ Only Stores she was not provided with a seat despite her contention that the nature of her work as a cashier reasonably permitted the use of a seat. The plaintiff based her claim for a seat on Wage Order 7-2001, Section 14 (entitled “Seats”), which provides:

A. All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.

B. When employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.

• Print
• Share Link

A California federal court gave final approval to a $2.91 million settlement between Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and approximately 500 information technology employees who alleged they were misclassified as exempt under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, and denied overtime for working through meal periods and working in excess of 40 hours per week, 8 hours per day or on the 7th consecutive day of a workweek. To learn more about the case, please continue reading at Littler's Healthcare Employment Counsel blog.

Photo credit: Bartek Szewczyk

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Texas Workforce Commission recently amended its regulations to clarify the types of compensation that must be paid to employees upon the termination of the employment relationship.

The new rules state that vacation, sick pay, paid time off (“PTO”), and paid days off “(“PDO”) accrue and must be paid to separated employees only if required by a written agreement or policy. In addition, accrued leave time does not carry over from year to year unless a written agreement or policy provides for such carry over.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 7, 2010, Alaska enacted a law restricting the amount of overtime nurses can work at private and public health care facilities. Many of the law’s provisions do not take effect until 2011. The law does provide, however, that a health care facility must file a report with the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s Division of Labor Standards and Safety prior to February 1, 2011. The report, which covers the time period from July 2010 through December 31, 2010, must identify, for each nurse employed by the health care facility or under contract with the health care facility, the number of overtime hours worked and the number of hours the nurse was on call. The Department just recently made the required form available on its web site. 

Health care facilities whose nurses have not worked overtime hours and have not been on call during the reporting period may simply indicate on the form that there are no reportable hours.

This entry was written by Christopher Kaczmarek.
 

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A California Court of Appeal has upped the ante in the ongoing legal debate concerning meal and rest period obligations in California (pdf), unambiguously asserting that an employer is only obligated “to ensure that its employees are free from its control for thirty minutes, not to ensure that the employees do any particular thing during that time.” This holding is all the more notable given the court’s subsequent order certifying its opinion in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (pdf), No. B216004, as suitable for publication. Consequently, it is currently citable and available as precedent.

• Print
• Share Link