Several new wage and hour bills made it through various state legislatures during the second half of the year. Below is a wrap up of some new developments (including regulatory updates) from July 1st through December 31st. Click here to read our post on changes to state minimum wages.
In Barbosa v. IMPCO Technologies, Inc., the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held that terminating an employee for exercising his statutory right to overtime wages out of a reasonable, good faith belief of entitlement to it, (notwithstanding the subsequent discovery that he was wrong), was contrary to California public policy.
In a putative class action pending in the Northern District of California filed by Catherine Sullivan against Kelly Services, Inc. (Case No. C 08-3893 CW), Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in a summary judgment motion that the time spent interviewing by Kelly Services' employees seeking temporary work assignments with Kelly Services' clients is compensable under California law. However, Judge Wilken also ruled that the time spent preparing for and commuting to the client interviews was not compensable, and that Kelly Services was not required to reimburse the employees for expenses incurred in attending the interviews. Judge Wilken found that under the facts of this case, the employees were "subject to the control" of Kelly Services and that Kelly Services "suffered or permitted" the employees to work in connection with the interviews. She rejected the defense argument that the client interviews were "voluntary," finding that the failure to interview would prevent the employee from being considered for 50% of the job assignments . She also rejected the defense argument that the interviews were not time worked as the employees were not employed in between work assignments, finding this latter argument inconsistent with the position taken by the employer in a prior action between the parties.
On September 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court declined to review an appellate court order reversing an $86 million trial award against Starbucks. As discussed in detail in our earlier blog entry, in Jou Chau v. Starbucks Corporation, the court of appeal reversed the trial court's award to a certified class of Starbucks "baristas" who had challenged Starbucks’ tip policy on the ground that certain service employees, known as “shift supervisors,” had improperly shared in the customer tips left in a collective tip box. Since a denial of review by the California Supreme Court is done without comment, it is hard to predict what this means for other tip pooling cases. However, it is important to remember that the appellate court made a clear distinction between a collective tip box and service companies that pool tips. According to the appellate court, the Starbucks policy passed muster because (1) “shift supervisors” were part of the “team” of employees who provided service to the customers (along with baristas) and (2) a collective tip box was used.
This blog entry was authored by Matthew Marca.
An important new opinion letter from the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), issued on August 19, 2009, conforms California’s approach to furloughing salaried “white collar” exempt employees with the federal approach. The opinion approved an employer’s request to reduce its exempt employees’ scheduled work days from five to four days per week, along with a corresponding reduction in salary. This approach was designed to address the employer’s significant but temporary economic difficulties, with the expectation that as soon as business conditions permitted, the employer would restore the full five-day work schedule and the full salaries of its exempt employees. This opinion withdraws a prior DLSE opinion that had concluded that federal and California law “precludes an employer from reducing the salary of an exempt employee during a period when a company operates a shortened workweek due to economic conditions.” DLSE Opinion 2002.03.12 at p. 5.
For an in-depth discussion and guidance on this development, see Littler ASAP, DLSE Agrees California’s Partial-Week Furlough Options Are Coextensive With Federal Law.
This blog entry was authored by Dan Thieme and Alison Hightower
On June 2, 2009, the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, issued an opinion in the class action case of Jou Chau v. Starbucks Corporation, reversing the trial court’s award of over $86 million to a previously certified class of Starbucks “baristas” who had challenged Starbucks’ tip policy on the ground that certain service employees, known as “shift supervisors,” had improperly shared in the customer tips left in a collective tip box.
The facts and legal arguments at the bench trial were fairly straightforward. Starbucks allowed shift supervisors who primarily engaged in barista-type customer service duties to share tips left by customers in a collective tip box. A former barista, Jou Chau, brought a putative class action against Starbucks, claiming that the tip-sharing policy violated California Labor Code section 351. That Section states, in relevant part:
Continue Reading...No employer or agent shall collect take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for. . . .
On May 29, 2009, the California court of appeal held that an admittedly valid employment arbitration agreement would control the disposition of a former employee’s administrative wage claim against his former employer. Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, Case No. B204902.
The employee was subject to an arbitration agreement requiring certain claims, including claims for unpaid vacation, be submitted to arbitration. The former employee nonetheless filed an administrative charge with the Labor Commissioner seeking recovery for unpaid vacation. The employer sought to dismiss the administrative proceeding and compel arbitration. The trial court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement, but the court of appeal reversed.
The court of appeal held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because it did not pose a significant obstacle to the vindication of the employee’s statutory rights. In reaching its decision, the court relied on recent authority from the United States Supreme Court. In Preston v. Ferrer, 128 S. Ct. 978 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Labor Commissioner’s original and exclusive jurisdiction was divested by the FAA with regard to a contract dispute arising under the Talent Agencies Act. Although not entirely on point, the court of appeal found the Preston decision to be persuasive, emphasizing its reasoning that the arbitration clause was binding since it only decided the forum of adjudication without relinquishing any substantive rights. So too in this case, the arbitration provision did not negate any substantive rights, but only required the employee to bring his vacation claim in arbitration rather than before the Labor Commissioner.
This blog entry was authored by Jim Hart.
On April 29, 2009, the Supreme Court of California granted the petitioner’s petition for review of the Second District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (2009 170 Cal. App. 4th 466, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 345), concerning the legality of tip-pooling arrangements with casino dealers.
In granting review, the Supreme Court limited the pure legal question to the following: “Does Labor Code section 351, which prohibits employers from taking ‘any gratuity or part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron,’ create a private right of action for employees?” The vote for review of the Court of Appeal decision was unanimous.
In addition to the recent Etheridge v. Reins Int’l Cal., Inc. opinion by California’s Second District Court of Appeal, California employers should note the Second District’s recent tip-pooling opinion in Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe’s Casino, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1399 (2009). In Grodensky, the plaintiff, a casino card dealer, filed a putative class action challenging a mandatory tip-pooling policy that Artichoke Joe’s Casino had implemented for its dealers. The trial court determined (and the Court of Appeal affirmed) that the casino had not violated the minimum wage law by the tip-pooling arrangement, but had violated Labor Code section 351 by requiring the dealers to share their tips with shift managers. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial court’s issuance of a pre-trial protective order prohibiting any communications regarding the lawsuit between the casino and dealers while determination of the class certification motion was pending. The Court of Appeal also affirmed that Grodensky and the putative class had a private right of action under Labor Code § 351 and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the disgorgement of the sums taken from the dealers’ tips and distributed to the shift managers. Compare Etheridge v. Reins Int’l Cal., Inc., 2009 WL 794521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) with Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s of Cal., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 875 (2009) (restaurant employees who do not provide direct table service may share in tip pool).
This blog entry was authored by Tyler Paetkau.
In a blow to UPS, and other employers in California, a California federal court recently ruled that employers are liable for up to two hours of additional pay when an employee misses both a meal and rest break. California law provides for a one hour premium of regular pay for each day that a non-exempt employee is not provided meal or rest breaks as required by the various California Wage Orders. (California Labor Code sec. 226.7).
Employers have argued that under California law, an employer is only obligated to pay a one hour premium for missed meal and lunch breaks per day, whether there was one or multiple violations in the same day. In the first direct ruling on this issue, the court in Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Case No. CV 03-04336 DDP, held that the employee may recover up to two additional hours of pay on a single work day for meal period and rest break violations: one if any meal period violations occur in a work day and one if any rest break violations occur in a work day. However, if more than one rest period violation occurs in a single work day but no meal period violations occur, the employee may only recover one additional hour of pay for all of the rest period violations combined; likewise, if more than one meal period violation occurs in a single work day but no rest period violations occur on that day, the employee may only recover one additional hour of pay for all of the meal period violations combined.
While the ruling will likely be appealed, employers should evaluate their pay practices with respect to missed meal and rest periods to comply with the ruling until further authority is established. On a positive note, the Court agreed with other recent rulings and held that an employer's obligation with respect to meal breaks is to make a meal period available to employees, but places them under no further obligations to ensure that a meal break is taken. This issue is currently pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum).
This blog entry was authored by Gregory G. Iskander.
This most recent on the city charter exemption in State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista (4/28/09) D052181 (PDF), is a favorable one for city contractors who might do work for chartered cities. The court held that chartered cities are exempted from the requirements of the prevailing wage statute, Labor Code section 1720, et seq. under the municipal affairs clause of the California Constitution. The victory may be short-lived, given the number of amicus on this appellate decision, including California’s Attorney General, which filed a brief in support of the Building Trade Councils. The “municipal affairs exemption” is ripe for Supreme Court review. Those following prevailing wage cases will recall that many anticipated a decision from the California Supreme Court in City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations (2004) 34 Cal.4th 942 on the municipal affairs exemption but were disappointed when the California Supreme Court reached a decision on other grounds and failed to address the exemption.
Continue Reading...On November 6, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, issued an opinion in Oracle v. Sullivan, 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), which came to three important conclusions regarding the reach of California law, including the following:
First, California's overtime laws may apply to nonresident employees (in the case itself, individuals from Arizona and Colorado were involved) for those periods of time that the employees temporarily work in California;
Second, the court found that a company that has a sufficient presence in the state, such as Oracle, can be required to comply with California law without violating that employer's due process rights; and
Third, the court found that California's unfair competition law does not apply to acts based on alleged federal wage law violations that occur outside of the state.
This opinion was reported in our earlier blog posting, Federal Court Finds California Law Applies to Out Of State Workers.
Several new wage and hour bills made it through various state legislatures during the first quarter of the year. Below is a wrap up of new developments (including regulatory updates) since the beginning of the year.
Arkansas House Bill 1552 Effective 7/17/2009. Requires employers to provide unpaid break time and reasonable locations for expressing breast milk.
California Assembly Bill x2 5 Effective 1/1/2010. Eases the requirements for an alternative work week. For additional information see our previous Blog entry, Requirements for Use of Alternative Workweek in California Eased Slightly.
Iowa Senate File 618 Effective July 1, 2009. Updates civil and criminal penalties of up to $10,000 for the illegal use of child labor and from $100 to $500 per violation for workplace labor violations. For additional information see our previous Blog entry New Mexico and Iowa Toughen Penalties for Wage and Hour Violations.
Massachusetts Senate Bill 2438 Effective 4/9/2009. A mother may breastfeed her child in any public place or establishment or place which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and where the mother and her child may otherwise lawfully be present. The statute doesn't specifically mention employment, however it can be construed to include places of employment.
Montana House Bill 101 Effective 3/20/2009. Revises the time period that an employer may withhold money from an employee's final paycheck in cases of theft or property or theft of funds.
Missouri Regulation 8 MO-ADC 4.010 et seq Effective 3/30/2009. The Missouri Department of Labor's minimum wage regulations expressly adopts interpretations of the FLSA, and federal regulations. For additional information see our previous Blog entry, New Missouri Wage and Hour Rules Reintroduce Federal Interpretations.
Nevada Minimum Wage and Overtime Rates Announced Effective 7/1/2009. For more details see our previous blog entry here.
New Mexico House Bill 849 Effective Jun 19, 2009. Allows workers to collect treble damages against employers that violate the state's $7.50-an-hour minimum wage law. For additional information see our previous Blog entry New Mexico and Iowa Toughen Penalties for Wage and Hour Violations.
North Dakota Senate Bill 2344 Effective September 5, 2009. Provides that if the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner, a woman may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be. Although this portion of the new law it does not expressly mention employers, its terms are broad enough to apply to the workplace.
Oregon Regulation OR-ADC 839-020-0050 Effective 1/12/2009. Clarifies meal and rest period requirements in situations where providing a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period is not feasible. For additional information see our previous blog entry here.
US House Resolution 11 Effective 5/28/2007. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Congress made retroactive to May 28, 2007, extends the time period for employees to assert pay discrimination claims by making each paycheck a discriminatory act; not just the initial pay determination. For further information, see Littler ASAP Paycheck Rule Revived for Pay Discrimination Claims with Signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Virginia Senate Bill 1264 Effective 7/1/2009. Allows employers to utilize prepaid credit cards or a debit card without employee's consent for employees hired after January 1, 2010, when the employee has not designated a financial institution to receive direct deposit of the employee's wages.
Wisconsin Regulations DWD 272.01 et seq. Effective 7/24/2009. Changes the state minimum wage to $7.25 an hour effective July 24, 2009. Also changes opportunity wage and allowance for boarding.
The California Court of Appeal in Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc. has held that mandatory tip-pooling policies that allow tips to be shared with staff who do not provide direct table service are enforceable. California restaurant employers and other employers that allow tips would be well advised to review, and if necessary, amend mandatory tip-pooling policies. See Littler ASAP California Appellate Court Protects Employers Who Allow Tips for Dishwashers for more information.
On February 20, 2009 in Ontiveros v. Zamora, the court held that the plaintiff stated a viable claim for individual liability under a joint employment theory for violations of state wage and hour laws.
The court agreed with defendants that a corporate officer could not be held liable for the wage and hour violations of a corporation based on the individual's status alone, including the fact that he owned or otherwise controlled the corporation as was the case here. The court acknowledged California courts have consistently held that individual officers, directors, shareholders, and managers of a corporation cannot be considered personally liable for the corporation's failure to pay wages to employees or for related California Labor Code violations. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (2005); Bradstreet v. Wong, 161 Cal.App.4th 1440 (2008). The rationale has been that that none of the Labor Code sections at issue expressly define the term "employer." Rather, the courts have applied the common law definition of "employer," which does not include corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency.
Continue Reading...On March 2, 2009, the California Second District Court of Appeal rejected a putative class plaintiff’s argument that the California “tip pooling” statute, Labor Code § 351 (“§ 351”), prohibits so-called “indirect” servers (in this case bartenders) from sharing tips. Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., (2d Dist. 3/2/09). The plaintiff and appellant, Aaron Budrow, brought a putative class action against respondent Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., on the theory that distributions from the “tip pool” to persons who did not provide direct table service violated § 351. After the trial court sustained demurrers (motions to dismiss) to two of appellant’s three causes of action without leave to amend, the employer moved for summary judgment on the remaining cause of action that alleged a violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The trial court granted the motion. The court of appeal affirmed.
The employer owned and operated restaurants throughout the U.S., employing servers, cocktail servers, buspersons and bartenders. The plaintiff was a cocktail server for a brief period of time. (The employer contended that it employed the plaintiff for one month; the employee contended that he worked for the employer for three months.) Dave & Buster’s tipping policy requires that servers contribute 1% of their gross sales to bartenders and other employees.
Continue Reading...The California Court of Appeal recently confirmed the right of an employer to secure a release from claims for unpaid overtime where there exists a bona fide dispute over whether overtime wages were actually due. In Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc., two former employees of Pick Up Stix brought a proposed class action lawsuit against their former employer asserting claims for unpaid overtime, alleging they were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. The employer was able to obtain settlements with over two hundred putative class members in exchange for their execution of a general release, wherein the employee acknowledged that he or she spent more than 50% of their time performing managerial duties and released Pick Up Stix from all claims for unpaid overtime and any other Labor Code violations during the relevant time period. Thereafter, the plaintiffs challenged the validity of these releases and argued that the settlement agreements violated Labor Code section 206.5, which provides: "An employer shall not require the execution of a release of a claim or right on account of wages due, or to become due, or made as an advance on wages to be earned, unless payment of those wages has been made. A release required or executed in violation of the provisions of this section shall be null and void as between the employer and the employee."
We recently reported a significant California Court of Appeals decision, marking what appears to be turning point in the development of California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). In Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, the Second District Court of appeal addressed several unsettled PAGA issues. The Court's analysis has far-reaching consequences with respect to several issues, including (i) the settlement of individual and class-wide PAGA claims, (ii) the status of an "aggrieved employee" as a plaintiff, and (iii) the nature of PAGA representative actions.
On February 23, 2009, the plaintiff's in Deleon filed for review by the California Supreme Court. Employers are advised to monitor the Supreme Court's actions in this case, particularly those currently litigating purported PAGA claims. Unless and until the Supreme Court grants review, however, Deleon may still be cited as good law. For a more thorough analysis of the impact of the Deleon decision, see the Littler ASAP "Bounty Hunters" Lose Their State "Badge" as Court of Appeal Clarifies Several PAGA Issues.
This blog entry was authored by Vincent J. Mersich.
Ten years after it was first enacted, and as part of the resolution of California's budget crisis, California Labor Code section 511 authorizing the use of an alternative workweek was amended for the first time (AB X2 5) last week.
The bill itself was a model of expedited lawmaking - its creation, passage, and signing took less than ten days. AB X2 5 was introduced in the Assembly as a budget trailer bill on February 11, modified to its final form on February 14, and passed finally by the Senate on February 19, with the Governor signing it the next day. The bill was never reviewed by any budget or legislative policy committee.
Continue Reading...California Labor Code section 1776 requires public works contractors and subcontractors to maintain payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight-time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to workmen employed on a public works project, and to verify under penalty of perjury in a written declaration the accuracy of such payroll records. These certified payroll records must be prepared on forms provided by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or may consist of printouts of payroll data that are maintained as computer records, provided the printouts contain the same information as the forms provided by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Certified payroll records must be made available for inspection and/or furnished to employees and their authorized representative, members of the public, the awarding body, Labor Compliance Programs, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the California Department of Industrial Relations upon request, and generally within 10 days from the date of the request.
Continue Reading...UPDATE: On February 17, 2009, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its decision in Sullivan v. Oracle and remanded the case back to the California Supreme Court for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to consider the following issues:
First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?
Second, does California Business and Professions Code section 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?
Third, does section 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?
This blog update was authored by Jim Hart.
Deleon v. Verizon Wireless concerns a case where the employer had been previously sued under various sections of the California Labor Code for charging back commissions to its salespeople. No claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) were alleged in the original complaint. That case settled in 2006, and the court certified a class for purposes of settlement. Nothing in the settlement agreement made reference to the PAGA. Rather, the agreement defined "released claims" to include all liabilities and penalties arising out of "any conduct, events, or transactions occurring during the class period." After the settlement, the plaintiff in Deleon sued the same employer, purportedly on behalf of the same employees, based on the same violations of the Labor Code, but this time seeking only penalties pursuant to the PAGA. The employer demurred to the second complaint, and the court of appeal upheld the trial court's dismissal of the second complaint based on res judicata. The recent Deleon decision is significant for employers in at least the following three ways:
Settlement Agreements. Even if an employer is settling a class action that has no PAGA claims, provided the employees release all "liabilities and penalties" arising out of "any conduct, events, or transactions” occurring in the class period, Deleon provides that the employer should be protected against any subsequent tag-along PAGA actions. More importantly, the employer need not designate any part of the settlement amount as settling PAGA claims, and no part of the settlement amount need be paid to the State of California in order to release non-asserted PAGA claims. On the other hand, if PAGA claims are a part of the complaint, the parties will most likely be required to designate some portion of the settlement amount as settling PAGA claims, and 75 percent of that amount should be paid to the state.
Continue Reading...On January 21, 2009, the California Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing in the Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation case which addressed how to calculate overtime on a bonus. The court modified its opinion to clarify that the only controlling California authority on the issue is the directive that overtime hours be compensated at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. The December 23, 2008 opinion, with the January 21, 2009 revisions, was certified for publication. Marin v. Costco was discussed in further detail in our previous post.
This blog entry was authored by Sandra Dermody.
On January 22, 2009, a California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued an opinion upholding casino employers' right to maintain mandatory tip-pooling arrangements with dealers, finding no principled distinction between tip-pooling arrangements in the more familiar restaurant industry and the casino industry. Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., __ Cal. App. 4th __, (B194209 1/22/09). However, in partially reversing the summary judgment for the casino employer, the court also held that a triable issue of material fact existed as to whether certain "customer service representatives" and "senior customer services representatives" were "agents" of the employer entitled to participate in the mandatory tip-pooling arrangement. Further, although the court agreed with the trial court that California Labor Code sections 351 and 450 do not provide for a private right of action, it held that these sections can provide the predicate violation for an action under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The court also recognized that employees could use alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 351 and 450 to bring an action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq.
The court found that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the customer service representatives have the authority to, and do, "supervise, direct, or control the acts of" the dealers, making them ineligible to participate in mandatory tip-pooling arrangements.
As reported in our prior blog entry, California employers should ensure that supervisory employees, such as floor managers, do not participate in a tip-pooling arrangement.
This blog entry was authored by Tyler Paetkau.
On January 14, 2009, the California Supreme Court granted review in Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc. which, like Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, held that employers are only required to “provide” meal and rest breaks and, absent a policy or practice which discourages or prevents employees from taking their meal and rest breaks, claims for missed meal and rest breaks are not suitable for class treatment. As expected, the Supreme Court is holding the Brinkley case pending determination of the earlier Brinker Restaurant case. This means there will be no activity in Brinkley until Brinker Restaurant is decided.
The opening brief in Brinker Restaurant was filed on January 20, 2009. Respondent and amici (friends of the court) briefs will follow, as well as the final reply brief, a process that can take several months. At that point the case will be scheduled for oral argument. Check back on this blog for the progress of Brinker Restaurant.
This blog entry was authored by AnnaMary Gannon.
In an opinion letter dated December 19, 2008 (FLSA2008-18), the DOL found that itamae-sushi chefs and teppanyaki chefs were tipped employees under the FLSA, eligible to participate in employer-mandated tip pools.
Section 3(t) of the FLSA defines tipped employees as “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he/she customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(t). Section 3(m) allows tip-pooling among employees who customarily and regularly receives tips. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m); see also 29 C.F.R. § 531.54.
Itamae-sushi chefs and teppanyaki chefs have direct contact with customers, at the bar counter area (itamae-sushi chefs) and at customer tables (teppanyaki chefs). In support of its opinion, the DOL cited its “longstanding position that counter persons who serve customers may participate in tip pools. Citing FLSA Field Operations Handbook § 30d04(a); Wage and Hour Opinion Letter 1/25/83 (waiter chef who brings food order from kitchen to table and cooks it on hibachi grill in front of customers may share in tip pooling).
Many employers do not know that paying a non-discretionary bonus to non-exempt employees will require the payment of additional overtime. The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a good reminder of the need to pay overtime on such bonuses and of the fact that the method for calculating overtime on a bonus depends upon whether it qualifies as a “production bonus” or a “flat rate bonus.”
As a general matter, the payment of a non-discretionary bonus (one that is not discretionary in either the fact that it will be paid or in the formula for calculating it) to non-exempt employees triggers an additional overtime obligation because it retroactively increases the regular rate of pay for the employee receiving the bonus for the time period covered by the bonus. A non-exempt employee is entitled to be paid overtime at 1.5 times (or double, in some cases) the regular rate of pay for each overtime hour worked. With some specific exceptions not relevant here, the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes includes all compensation earned during the workweek. Thus, an employee who is paid a quarterly bonus has received additional compensation that was not included in the regular rate of pay when he or she was paid overtime for hours worked during the quarter at issue. An employer is required to resolve this issue by calculating a “regular rate” of pay on the bonus itself and then paying some portion of that regular bonus rate for each overtime hour worked during the period in which the bonus was earned. The precise method for calculating the overtime due on a bonus depends upon whether the amount of an employee’s bonus increases with each hour worked (in which case it is a “production bonus”) or whether the amount of the bonus is fixed independent of the hours worked (in which case it is a “flat rate bonus”).
Continue Reading...While large insurance companies reportedly have paid over $100 million each to settle overtime claims brought by claims adjusters, insurance brokerage giant Aon rolled the dice and won a significant trial victory last week. Aon prevailed in an eleven-day trial against a certified class of 1,024 current and former claims adjusters employed by Aon’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Cambridge Integrated Services, Inc. As in most of these cases brought by claims adjusters, Aon’s adjusters sought overtime pay, and Aon successfully relied upon the administrative exemption to justify its failure to pay overtime in a bench trial before retired judge Ronald Sabraw. Since the California Court of Appeal previously rejected the applicability of the administrative exemption to insurance claims adjusters in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, Aon’s adjusters here might have expected a cake walk. But little went their way this time.
Aon had four significant hurdles to overcome to avoid liability. To prove the adjusters were correctly classified exempt, Aon had to prove that: (1) the claims adjusters’ duties involved the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of Aon or its customers; (2) the claims adjusters customarily and regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment; (3) the claims adjusters performed under only general supervision work requiring special training, experience or knowledge; and (4) the adjusters spend at least 50 percent of their time performing these exempt duties. Aon cleared every one of these hurdles.
Continue Reading...A federal district court judge granted partial summary adjudication to SkyWest Airlines, Inc., holding that a former employee’s claims under California wage and hour laws are pre-empted by federal law. Specifically, the court found that the former employee is not entitled to California’s daily overtime and meal and paid rest periods because they conflict with federal law – Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151-88.
Tiffany Blackwell, a former customer service representative for SkyWest, sought relief for multiple alleged violations of state law including claims that SkyWest failed to compensate her for daily overtime hours and provide her with meal and paid rest periods. SkyWest countered that Ms. Blackwell was a member of SkyWest Airlines’ Frontline Association (SAFA) and was subject to SkyWest-SAFA’s negotiated collective employee contract, which governed the terms of her employment.
Continue Reading...California Labor Code section 515.5 exempts certain employees in the computer software field from the state overtime requirements provided certain criteria are met. Historically, this exemption was only available for employees whose compensation exceeded a minimum hourly rate, which was set annual by the Division of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR). Effective September 10, 2008, Assembly Bill 10 took effect, which expanded the exemption to include employees who are paid on a salary basis, as long as the salary exceeds certain monthly and annual amounts.
The DLSR has announced the applicable minimum rates for employees to qualify for California’s computer professional exemption. Effective January 1, 2009, the new hourly rate for computer software employees is $37.94 and the minimum annual salary exemption is $79,050.00, which must be paid in amounts no less than $6,587.50 per month. To qualify for the exemption, an employee’s compensation must equal or exceed these amounts and the employee must satisfy each of the elements set forth in section 515.5 of the Labor Code. The employee must be:
• Primarily engaged in duties that consist of at least one of the following: (1) application of system analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; (2) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; and (3) the documentation, testing creation, or modification of computer programs related to the design of software or hardware for computer systems; and
• Highly skilled and proficient in the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized information to computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering.
This blog entry was authored by Stacey James.
For the past several years, plaintiffs have routinely sought punitive damages in their wage and hour actions under the California Labor Code. A December 3, 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District may put a stop to that practice.
The plaintiff in Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties sued her former employer for denying her meal and rest breaks, failing to pay her minimum wage for all hours worked, and not providing her with accurate itemized wage statements. The jury awarded the plaintiff $26,300 in unpaid wages and penalties and, after finding that the defendant employer had engaged in malice, awarded the plaintiff an additional $195,000 in punitive damages.
Continue Reading...Now that the California Supreme Court has accepted review of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), Supreme Court No. D049331 (2008), California employers are hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm the well-reasoned decision of the Court of Appeal explaining an employer’s obligation to provide meal and break periods, as opposed to ensure that the meal and break periods are actually taken. Opening briefs in Brinker are due to be filed with the Supreme Court on January 20, 2009.
Immediately following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Brinker, the California Labor Commissioner issued a memorandum to all Department of Labor Standards Enforcement staff to follow the rulings in Brinker. When the Supreme Court granted review, the Labor Commissioner withdrew her memorandum, but directed DLSE staff to follow the numerous federal court decisions that concluded that, under California law, it is an employer’s obligation 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. For more information on the Labor Commissioner’s memorandum and citations to the federal cases addressing meal and break periods, see the Littler Mendelson ASAP, California Supreme Court Grants Review to Brinker – Employers Await Answers on Meal Period Obligation (October 2008).
The California Labor Federation, which represents more than 1,200 labor unions in California, protested loudly that the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Brinker merely created a split with the Third District’s earlier decision in Cicairos v. Summit Logistics Inc. (2006) 133 Cal.App.4th 949. In Cicairos, the court quoted a 2002 DLSE Opinion Letter that employers have “an affirmative duty to ensure that workers are actually relieved on duty.” The Supreme Court declined to grant review in Cicairos, as well as a request to have the opinion depublished. The defense bar and, fortunately, the California Labor Commissioner, read Cicairos as in accord with Brinker that an employer need only provide meal and rest breaks but, on unique facts, found that Summit Logistics failed to make meal and break periods available to its delivery drivers.
Continue Reading...The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that California’s Labor Code applies to work performed in California by non-residents of California. Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation (08 Cal. Op. Serv. 13,881) (Nov. 6, 2008).
The three Oracle plaintiffs were Colorado and Arizona residents who traveled to California to work for periods ranging from several weeks to several months. The plaintiffs brought a wage and hour class action against their employer, a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, seeking unpaid overtime on behalf of all out-of-state employees who worked complete days in California. The plaintiffs also brought a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (aka/ Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), both for violations that occurred in California and throughout the United States.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
