The original California Food Handler Card Law (“Food Handler Law”) was enacted by the passage of SB 602 in 2010 and codified in California’s Health and Safety Code 113790 et seq.  The law as passed raised a number of concerns by those in the food industry, as well as those who provide food safety training. One main concern was the July 1, 2011 deadline for compliance. As a result, a number of industry associations and organizations have been active in advocating for new legislation to amend the Food Handler Law to provide both clarification and hopefully more guidance on how to comply. 

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Proposed Amendments to the California Food Handler Card Law

Employers who are sued in state court by employees may obtain significant advantages in the litigation by removing the lawsuit from state court to federal court.  For instance, federal courts require a unanimous jury verdict (instead of a supermajority verdict), and jurors in federal court are often drawn from pools that demographically are more conservative and less tolerant of high awards of damages in civil actions.  However, not all cases can be removed to federal court, and certain circumstances must be present to execute such a maneuver.  A common basis for removal known as “diversity jurisdiction” may exist if the employee is a California resident and the employer is incorporated and headquartered in a different state (even though the employer does business or has operations in California).

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Employers Sued by the DFEH May Enjoy Federal-Court Advantages if They Move Quickly

When an employee is disabled by an industrial injury, an employer’s obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Act generally can be measured with what could be called arithmetic-like calculations.  However, gaging the extent of an employer’s obligations in such circumstances can begin to resemble calculus when disability-discrimination laws are figured in the equation. 

For example, upon learning that an injured employee has received a high disability rating, an employer’s quasi-mathematical equation might read:  “Work Requirements + 90 Days of Light Duty + High Disability Rating = No Obligation to Continue Light-Duty Accommodation or to Hold Position Open.”  However, that formula is not properly calibrated to ensure that an employer reaches the correct solution under anti-discrimination laws.

Continue Reading Employer’s Exclusive Reliance On Workers’ Compensation Calculations Can Add Up To Liability For Failing To Accommodate Disabled Employees

Employers now may be permitted to include clauses known as class-action-waivers in arbitration agreements with employees, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Valid class-action-waivers restrict employees who wish to pursue legal recourse against employers to do so only through individual arbitrations and not as a member of a class action filed in court.  Simply put, these provisions require an employee to waive his or her right to participate in class-action litigation against the employer.  Where such waivers are allowed, employers may reduce substantially their exposure to costly class actions; for example, those alleging wage-and-hour or meal-and-rest-period violations.

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Employers May Have Ability to Reduce Class-Action Exposure Under New U.S. Supreme Court Decision

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.” 

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Court Of Appeal Upholds Salary Agreements That Include Straight Time and Overtime Payments