My Orange County Employment Law Firm has recently handled two rental offset cases, one in Orange County and one in Los Angeles County. Generally, rent may not be credited against minimum wage without a voluntary written agreement between the employee and the employer. Both clients were property managers, one at a Hotel and the other at a large apartment complex. They earned low hourly wages, and had their rent offset from their wages. This is legal, however, there are strict guidelines as to what the employer can deduct as a rental credit.
Regardless if there is a written agreement or not, the amount of the rental credit must not be more than the following: (1) $37.63 per week for rooms occupied alone; (2) $31.06 per week for shared rooms; (3) Two-thirds of the ordinary rental value but never more than $451.89 per month for apartments; (4) Where a couple are both employed by the employer, two-thirds of the ordinary value but never more than $668.46 per month. (All listed amounts effective as of January 1, 2008.)
Any employer who has failed to abide by these limitations or who has otherwise failed to implement a voluntary written agreement as required, may be liable to the affected employee for not only the amount of wages unpaid as a result of the unlawful offset, but also for penalties, interest, and reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and costs.
In the recent California Court of Appeals decision Jeewarat v. Warner Brothers Entertainment, the Court relied on what is known as the "special errand doctrine". This doctrine provides an exception to the "going and coming rule" which means that an employee who has an accident during travel time to and from home to work is solely responsible for the accident, not the employer.
My Orange County Employment Law Firm has handled many cases regarding travel time. However, those cases usually center on whether or not an employee is entitled to wages while traveling for his or her employer. In the Jeewarat case, the employee was driving home from the airport after a three day business trip when he struck three pedestrians, killing one of them and injuring the others. Those pedestrians then sued the employee and his employer, Warner Brothers.
The Court held that the "special errand doctrine" provided an exception to the going and coming rule. Because Warner Brothers paid for its employee's airfare, hotel, and other travel expenses, the entire trip was not concluded until the employee reached his home. Consequently, the Court found Warner Brothers to be vicariously liable (responsible) for its employee's actions, and thus liable for damages to the pedestrians.
Any California employee who feels they were discriminated against at work due to a disability falls under the auspice of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). As discussed in my prior blog post, disabilities used to be defined as "conditions that affect one or more of the body systems, such as the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and that limit an individual's ability to participate in a major life activity." On September 23, 2009, the new Amendments to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) were published, which included some of the following items:
The definition of "disability" was broadened, making it easier for an employee to establish that she has a disability. Specifically, where it once said "substantially limiting a major life activity", the new amendment does not require the disability to be significant or severely restricting a major life activity.
The definition of "major life activities" was significantly broadened.
If a disability is in remission but would substantially limit a major activity when "active" it still would be considered a disability.
These new amendments emphasize that a disability should be construed broadly in favor of the employee, which will make it much easier for employees to establish a disability under the ADA.
A Riverside County Superior Court jury awarded $25 million in punitive damages to the nearly $1 million in compensatory damages they had awarded the previous day to a former Kmart manager for age discrimination. In the case of Harkins v. Kmart, the plaintiff alleged that Kmart's unlawful conduct was part of a sequence of events designed to get him to retire. Plaintiff had provided exceptional service to Kmart for 20 years, and claimed he was being terminated solely due to his age (64). He alleged that in the months before his termination, he was unlawfully demoted and disciplined in veiled attempts to "work on him" to quit or retire. When he did not "retire" or quit, he was fired. This firing, plaintiff alleged, was retaliatory due to his refusal to quit and due to his age.
My Orange County Employment Law Firm was recently retained on a case where age discrimination was the primary claim. In assessing such cases, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a company's need to reduce its work force due to budgetary concerns and a company using that reason as a pretext for its true motive, ridding itself of an "old" employee. Factors that tend to sway the scales in one direction or the other tend to be things like whether other job positions were eliminated, if other employees lost their jobs (and their ages in comparison to the rest of the workforce) and if the company intends on hiring (or has hired) new employees to replace or fill the holes left by the dismissed employees.
In California, vacation pay is not required. However, many employers have chosen to implement various vacation pay policies for their employees. Those that have must then comply with California law pertaining to vacation pay.
With the state of today's economy, more and more employees are suddenly out of work. My Orange County Employment Law Firm has received a large increase in calls regarding vacation pay, specifically that employees have either been let go or terminated without getting all their vacation pay. So, what is the law? In California accrued (already earned) vacation days are just like wages, meaning once they have been earned, they become the property of that employee.
Many employers have a policy in place that states something to the effect of "Use it or Lose It", meaning that employees who have earned a certain amount of vacation days will lose those accrued vacation days if they are not used in a specific period of time. Such a policy is absolutely against the law! Employees are given two options with regard to accrued vacation:
They must be permitted to carry-over the accrued vacation days; or
The remaining accrued vacation days must be paid out to the employee at whatever rate the employee is earning at the time of the payout.
If an employee separates from an employer without receiving as pay all accrued vacation days, the employee may also then be entitled to waiting time penalties, which I detailed in a previous blog post, interest, and reimbursement of attorneys fees and costs from the employer.
However, having said all that, employers do have the right to determine the other criteria of their vacation policy, specifically which employees are entitled to receive paid vacation, at what rate or frequency vacation days accrue, and how much can be accrued at one time.
Almost all California employees are "at will" employees, meaning they can be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not an unlawful reason. So, if most employees are at will employees, what separates a termination from a wrongful termination?
California employees can essentially be terminated for any reason, so long as the reason is not an unlawful reason. Here are some of the more common unlawful reasons that would make a termination a wrongful termination:
An employee may not be terminated for lawfully reporting sexual harassment to a supervisor or to Human Resources;
Similar to above, an employee cannot be terminated for participating in an investigation of someone else's claims of sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination;
For exposing certain unlawful wrongdoings by the company or by a higher ranking employee of the company, commonly known as whistle-blowing;
For submitting a worker's compensation claim from injuries suffered at work;
As I have detailed in previous blog posts about labor code penalties, California has by far the strictest labor laws in the nation. Consequently, employers need to take all steps necessary to insulate themselves from employee lawsuits. One of the most important ways to do that is to have a properly drafted Employee Handbook. Having a properly drafted Employee Handbook may reduce an employer's exposure and liability in a lawsuit filed by an employee against the employer.
My Orange County Employment Law Firm has defended many employers and businesses in lawsuits filed by employees. The severity of many of those lawsuits could have been minimized if that company had an effective Employee Handbook in place. Additionally, some of those lawsuits may not even have been filed if the employees had a handbook advising them of their rights and obligations.
At a minimum, employers in California are required to provide to its employees certain workplace policies in writing. However, a properly drafted Employee Handbook suited to a company's specific business needs may also include items such as vacation pay or lunch breaks, which, though not legally required, will lessen the employer's exposure to lawsuits concerning those topics.
Examples of Employee Handbooks or Manuals can be found everywhere. However, one size does not fit all. I cannot urge employers enough to retain legal counsel who are well versed in employment law to properly assist in the formation of a handbook suitable to the employer's specific company.
In California, tips are the sole property of the employee for whom it is left. However, tip-pools that share all the tips with non-supervisory employees is acceptable ONLY if those receiving a share of an employee's tips provided direct service to the customer. As an example, a lawful tip-pool at a restaurant could be for waiters/waitresses, hostesses, and bus boys. However, this pool could not include cooks or dishwashers, as they did not provide any direct service to the patron. Owners, managers, and supervisors can NEVER share in the tip pool.
Employees are entitled to recover all tips unlawfully pooled or taken from them, and also may be entitled to recover penalties. If an employee complains to their employer about an unlawful tip-pooling policy and is in turn treated adversely, the employee may also have a separate claim for retaliation.
Employers cannot require employees to waive their rights to tips. As such, any documents that employees have signed wherein they agreed or consented to sharing a portion of their tips with management or other supervisors, as well as employees who do not provide a direct service to the patron, is invalid.
California law prohibits employers with at least five or more employees from discriminating against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or pregnancy-related medical condition.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) generally provides that an employee who is disabled on account of pregnancy is entitled to up to four months of leave from work. All time off needed for routine prenatal care, such as doctor's visits, as well as, time off for medically-ordered bed rest, severe morning sickness, childbirth, recovery from childbirth or other pregnancy-related condition may be counted against the leave time. Furthermore, if the employee does not exceed the leave time, she is guaranteed the right to return to work at the same position or a comparable position.
Like any physical disability, an employee disabled on account of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related medical condition has the right to request a medically-advisable reasonable accommodation, such as a request for less strenuous or less hazardous duties. The request needs to be based upon the recommendation of your doctor. Whether the accommodation must be provided is generally based upon whether the accommodation is reasonable and whether the requested accommodation unduly burdens the employer.
Any violation of the rights described above may give rise to a claim of sex (pregnancy) discrimination against your employer.
I cursorily discussed Labor Code Penalties in a previous post. However, as it applies to lunch breaks and rest breaks, recent California case law has significantly impacted these issues. In this post I will discuss in greater detail the current state of lunch break penalties and rest break penalties.
Clients frequently contact my Orange County Employment Law Firm inquiring about lunch break issues. The law states that if lunch breaks or rest breaks are not provided as required by California law, claimants are entitled to more than just the unpaid wage for working through the lunch or rest break, they are also entitled to one hour or pay for each workday that a lawful meal break or rest break was not provided.
However, California Courts have recently directed its focus on the differences between ensure and provide. Previously, employers had a duty to ensure that its employees were taking a duty free lunch (duty free means just that, not working. So, sitting at your desk and eating lunch while answering the phone occasionally when it rings is not duty free). Thus, if employers did not ensure an employee was taking a duty free lunch, they were subject to the above described penalty if an employee failed to take a duty free lunch.
Recent case law has altered the definition, changing an employer's duty from ensure its employees were taking a lunch to simply that they provide the employees with the opportunity to take a duty free lunch. Thus, if an employer has a policy that all employees take a duty free lunch, and an employee does not do so, the employer is not liable for any of the above damages if the employer does not know the employee failed to take a lunch. So, recent case law has taken much of the bite of lunch break penalties away from employees.
I previously discussed California's more common wage and hour penalties and their respective remedies in a previous Labor Code Penalties post. In this post, I will discuss in greater detail what is commonly referred to as an "Itemized Wage Statement Penalty" or IWS penalty.
While working for any employer, every employee must receive wage statements that are properly itemized, which means the pay stub must contain certain specific items of information, consisting of the following nine items:
gross wages earned,
total hours worked by the employee,
the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis,
the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid,
the name of the employee and the last four digits of his or her social security number,
the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and
all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
An employer's failure to provide pay check with stubs containing this information may be liable for an itemized wage statement penalty. Such a penalty results in a penalty of $50 for the first violation, $100 for each subsequent violation - up to $4000 per employee.
I summarily discussed Labor Code Penalties in a previous post describing several of California's more common wage and hour penalties and their respective remedies. Here, I will discuss in greater detail what is commonly referred to as a "waiting time penalty."
When potential clients contact my Orange County Employment Law Firm, they usually just want what they are owed (in the form of unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, etc.) However, most clients never knew that when an employee separates from an employer, whether by termination or resignation, he/she must be paid all wages that are owed at the time of separation. This is true both in the case of termination or resignation, but the time frame for each to be paid in full is slightly different.
If being fired, the employee is entitled to all wages owed at the time
