On May 9, 2016 the EEOC issued yet another “guide” – this time to outline its position on when and how leave must be granted for reasons related to an employee’s disability under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The publication, entitled “Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” contains information on the
Ninth Circuit Holds that Employers Who Use Facially Neutral “Rounding” Timekeeping Policies Do Not Have to Guarantee that an Individual Employee Gains or Breaks Even on Wages Each Pay Period
On May 2, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment – Advance/Newhouse Partnership and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of employer, Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (“TWEAN”) in a putative class action brought by a TWEAN employee seeking lost compensation based on TWEAN’s timekeeping policy.
Summary of
Pull up a Chair: California Supreme Court Weighs in on Suitable Seating
To sit or not to sit, that is the question. And now the California Supreme Court has given us an answer. Well, sort of. They have told us how to find the answer. Even that’s a stretch. Pull up a seat and I will explain.
To help it resolve two class actions involving California Wage Order requirements that employers provide employees with suitable seats, the Ninth Circuit recently certified some questions for the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court responded in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. As stated verbatim in the Supreme Court’s responsive opinion, these were the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit:
- Does the phrase “nature of the work” refer to individual tasks performed throughout the workday, or to the entire range of an employee’s duties performed during a given day or shift?
- When determining whether the nature of the work “reasonably permits” use of a seat, what factors should courts consider? Specifically, are an employer’s business judgment, the physical layout of the workplace, and the characteristics of a specific employee relevant factors?
- If an employer has not provided any seat, must a plaintiff prove a suitable seat is available in order to show the employer has violated the seating provision?”
If you just want the short answers, the opinion was kind enough to give us those right up front as well. Again, verbatim:
- The “nature of the work” refers to an employee’s tasks performed at a given location for which a right to a suitable seat is claimed, rather than a “holistic” consideration of the entire range of an employee’s duties anywhere on the jobsite during a complete shift. If the tasks being performed at a given location reasonably permit sitting, and provision of a seat would not interfere with performance of any other tasks that may require standing, a seat is called for.
- Whether the nature of the work reasonably permits sitting is a question to be determined objectively based on the totality of the circumstances. An employer’s business judgment and the physical layout of the workplace are relevant but not dispositive factors. The inquiry focuses on the nature of the work, not an individual employee’s characteristics.
- The nature of the work aside, if an employer argues there is no suitable seat available, the burden is on the employer to prove unavailability.
So, there you go. If you just wanted the answers, you can stop reading now. But if you want a little elaboration and more background on how the Court arrived at those answers, and my thoughts on what employers should take away from the opinion, remain seated and continue ahead.Continue Reading Pull up a Chair: California Supreme Court Weighs in on Suitable Seating
Mandatory AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training
Summary of Program
The regulations regarding California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for supervisors require that certain employers provide training to their supervisors every two years.
The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin is offering a two hour in-person training session that will comply with all the requirements outlined in the
Upcoming Webinar – Uber v. The World: Redefining Independent Contractors in the Modern Day
Summary of Program
The risks involved in misclassifying a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee have always been serious. A number of federal and state agencies regulate the proper classification of workers and have the authority to impose significant monetary and non-monetary sanctions against employers who get the classification wrong.
Program Highlights