On April 11, 2016, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 908 which amends certain provisions of California’s Unemployment Insurance Code as it relates to the State’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program. Before explaining the amendments provided for under AB 908, I think it is important to clarify something that is too often misstated in the press. Despite its name, California’s PFL program is not a statutory leave of absence program that guarantees paid family leave to employees in California. Instead, it is a partial wage replacement benefit for eligible employees who are on some other authorized statutory or discretionary leave of absence from work. As such, employees do not have the right to “take leave” under the PFL program.
Continue Reading Governor Brown Signs Bill to Expand the Amount of Wage Replacement Available under California’s Paid Family Leave Law
There Can Be Two “Prevailing Parties” in a Single Wage & Hour and Equal Pay Act Lawsuit
On October 14, 2015, the California Second District Court of Appeal held in Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc. that both the employee and the employer can be deemed “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering attorneys’ fees under the Labor Code. Plaintiff, Mahta Sharif, brought an action against her former employer, Mehusa, Inc., for unpaid overtime (Lab. Code, § 1194), unpaid wages (Lab. Code, § 201), and violation of California’s Equal Pay Act (Lab. Code, § 1197.5). She prevailed on her Equal Pay Act claim with the jury awarding her $26,300. Mehusa prevailed on Plaintiff’s overtime and wage claims. Plaintiff filed a cost memorandum and was awarded her costs. She also filed a motion for attorney fees in the amount of $280,432 under Labor Code section 1197.5(g) as the prevailing party on her Equal Pay Act claim. Plaintiff’s attorney fees request consisted of a lodestar amount of $140,216 and a multiplier of two. Mehusa filed a motion for attorney fees and costs under Labor Code section 218.5 in the amount of $36,982.24 as the prevailing party on Plaintiff’s wage claims. Mehusa estimated that 75% of defense counsel’s time was spent defending against Plaintiff’s unsuccessful wage claims.
Continue Reading There Can Be Two “Prevailing Parties” in a Single Wage & Hour and Equal Pay Act Lawsuit
Labor Commissioner’s First Opinion Letter On California’s New Paid Sick Leave Law
On August 7, 2015, the California Labor Commissioner issued its first opinion letter on one discrete issue under the California Health Workplaces Healthy Families Act which requires employers to provide paid sick leave to employees. The question posed to the Labor Commissioner was this:
If an employee currently works a regular 10 hour shift, and if the employer elects to proceed under a “no accrual or carry over” system … of providing paid sick leave, does the employer have to “front load” that employee at the beginning of the year with 30 hours of leave (three days at 10 hours per day) or only with 24 hours of leave on the theory that a “day” is limited to a maximum of eight hours?
Continue Reading Labor Commissioner’s First Opinion Letter On California’s New Paid Sick Leave Law
The Final Resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision
The EEOC issued a press release on July 20, 2015 announcing that the federal appeals court has dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch’s (“AF”) appeal of the EEOC’s religious discrimination case because AF made the decision to settle the case following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.
Below is a summary of the court proceedings.
The case arose when Samantha Elauf, then a teenager who wore a headscarf or hijab as part of her Muslim faith, applied for a job at an AF store in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. She was denied hire for failing to conform to the company’s “look policy,” which AF claimed banned head coverings. Elauf then filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination, and the EEOC filed suit against AF charging that the company refused to hire Elauf due to her religion, and that it failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to its “look policy” prohibiting head coverings. The trial court granted summary judgment on liability to EEOC after holding that the evidence established that Elauf wore the hijab as part of her Muslim faith, that AF was on notice of the religious nature of her practice, and that it refused to hire her as a result. A jury subsequently awarded Elauf damages for the discrimination.Continue Reading The Final Resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision
Governor Signs Assembly Bill No. 987 – Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation is Protected Activity under FEHA
This bill was in direct response to the decision in Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (2013), which found that an employee who merely makes a request for an accommodation does not engage in protected activity for purposes of a FEHA retaliation claim. Under this bill, the Government Code