Disagreeing with the California Labor Commission, a California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision that explicit mutual wage agreements which include straight time and overtime components are enforceable under California law. The Court affirmed that Labor Code section 515(d) does not outlaw explicit mutual wage agreements of this kind. In Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., a janitor sued his former employer for overtime wages. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that an explicit mutual wage agreement existed between the employee and the employer under which the employee’s fixed salary of $880 lawfully compensated him for both his regular and overtime work based on a regular hourly wage of $11.14 and an overtime wage of $16.71. Following his termination, Arechiga claimed that Labor Code section 515 governed his employment agreement. Citing subdivision (d) of the statute, Arechiga asserted that the Court must find that his salary of $880 compensated him only for 40 regular hours per week thus making his regular rate of pay $22 per hour and his overtime rate $33 per hour. He then argued that his employer owed him overtime at $33 per hour for his regularly scheduled 26 hours of overtime worked each week. Arechiga pointed to the express language of section 515(d) to support his argument. Subdivision (d) states: “For the purpose of computing the overtime rate of compensation required to be paid to the non-exempt full-time salaried employee, the employee’s regular hourly rate shall be 1/40th of the employee’s weekly salary.”
LAW ALERT: EEOC Publishes New Regulations Governing Federal Disability Laws
By Brendan J. Begley on
Taking the next step to implement the federal Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published its long-awaited final regulations on March 24, 2011. However, it is widely believed that the ADAAA and the recently published regulations will not greatly impact employers in California who are already covered by the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: EEOC Publishes New Regulations Governing Federal Disability Laws
LAW ALERT: FMLA Leave Now Even More Complex – Ninth Circuit Places Burden on Employers When Denying an Employee Reinstatement
By Labor & Employment on
Posted in FMLA and Other Leaves of Absence
Reinstatement is nearly a universal right held by employees returning from leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Courts have long held, with few exceptions, that employees returning from FMLA leave are entitled to reinstatement. In Sanders v. City of Newport (9th Cir. 08-35996), the Ninth Circuit reinforced this obligation by holding the burden is on the employer to justify why an employee cannot return from FMLA leave.
Mandatory Medicare Reporting Requirements – How Will They Impact The Settlement of Employment-Related Claims
By Alden Parker on
Posted in New Legislation and Regulations
On January 1, 2011, certain employers and insurers began being required to report settlements, judgments or awards, where medical expenses were paid to a Medicare-eligible claimant. As a result many employers and insurers are left wondering how this will affect settlements of employment related litigation cases. Below are some brief answers to some of the questions raised by these new reporting requirements.
LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Needs To Give It A “Rest”: Review Granted in Hernandez v. Chipotle
By Alden Parker on
Posted in Wage & Hour
On January 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (October 28, 2010) — Cal.App.4th —, 2010 WL 4244583. The Court granted review pending its decision in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum). In Hernandez, previously addressed by this blog, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order denying class certification of meal and rest period claims. The Court of Appeal held that California employers are only required to make available meal and rest periods to employees. As a result, the Court held that individual issues predominated over common issues. In other words, the Court had to look at whether each individual had meal and rest periods made available to them, but independently choose not to take them.
This recent action by the California Supreme Court grows the number of cases waiting for the decision in Brinker to five: Brinkley v. Public Storage, Bradley v. Networkers Int’l LLC, Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Brookler v. Radioshack Corp., and Hernandez v. Chipotle. We will all just have to sit tight and patiently wait for the Court to act.