On May 7, 2018, the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) published 14 new rules for interpreting the San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (“PSLO”). The PSLO was amended on January 1, 2017. The new rules take effect on June 7, 2018.
We’ve summarized the 5 rules that our clients most frequently ask about:
Continue Reading San Francisco’s New Rules for Enforcing its Paid Sick Leave Ordinance
On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. In a 5-4 decision written by the newest jurist, Justice Gorsuch, the Court declares that employers can require employees to arbitrate their employment disputes individually and waive their rights to resolve those disputes through class or collective actions.
Background.
The case was a consolidation of three cases (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.). In each case, the employees brought a class action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and related state law against their employer on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees for wage and hour violations. However, in each of the cases, the employees had entered into an agreement with their employer providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties. Although the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written, the employees argued that the FAA’s “savings clause” removes this obligation if an arbitration agreement violates some other federal law and that, by requiring individualized proceedings, the agreements they signed violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Continue Reading GOOD NEWS EMPLOYERS – The U.S. Supreme Court Says You Can Require Class Action Waivers In Your Arbitration Agreements
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court applied an expansive definition of independent contractor in a ruling that is sure to have a dramatic impact on many California businesses, and the burgeoning gig economy in particular.
In the case of Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior L.A. County, a class action was brought on behalf of a group of delivery drivers who were classified as independent contractors by delivery company, Dynamex. Dynamex argued that the drivers were properly designated as independent contracts under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard set forth in the Borello case—utilized by California businesses since 1989—which concentrated primarily on the degree of control the employer exercised over the worker. Dynamex’s drivers provided their own vehicles, paid their own transportation expenses (fuel, tolls, vehicle maintenance, and insurance), set their own schedules, and were generally free to choose the sequence in which they made deliveries and the routes they would take. They were also allowed to simultaneously work for other delivery companies.
Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Makes It More Difficult to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors – Assumes all Workers are Employees
It is an old joke that the world can be divided into people who are good at math and those who go to law school. Whether you believe the joke or not, math – or in this case, simple arithmetic – can be at the heart of many wage and hour questions. On March 5, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. The Court articulated a rule on how an employee’s overtime pay rate should be calculated when the employee has earned a flat sum bonus during a single pay period. Please be aware of the emphasized language: flat sum bonus.
Continue Reading Are You Doing it Right? California Supreme Court Clarifies Overtime Rate Calculations
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2069 was introduced by the California Assembly on February 7, 2018. Currently, California employers can deny employment or impose discipline on cannabis users, regardless of whether such use is for medical purposes. AB 2069 would amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to make it an unlawful practice for an employer to take adverse action against an applicant or employee because of a positive drug test for cannabis (by a medical cannabis card holder) or because of one’s status as a medical cannabis card holder.
Continue Reading Medical Cannabis Users May Soon be Protected Under FEHA – AB 2069
