In November 2016, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure No. 1433 (“IM 1433”) which provides for an incremental increase to the state minimum wage as of January 1, 2017 and also provides for paid sick leave benefits beginning January 1, 2018.  The stated intent behind IM 1443 is expressed in the initiative as follows:

“BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: …

It is the intent of the people to establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by increasing the hourly minimum wage to $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018), $12.00 (2019) and $13.50 (2020), and requiring employers to provide employees with paid sick leave to care for the health of themselves and their families.”

Read the rest of this article at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/washington-raises-minimum-wage-and-provides-paid-sick-leave/.

Date:  February 23, 2017

Time:  9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Summary of Program

The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin is pleased to offer this informative seminar that will discuss applicable laws and best practices to help business owners, human resource professionals, and managers avoid liability when they hire, discipline, and terminate employees.

Program Highlights:

  • Lawful and effective job postings and interview questions
  • Effective policies, training, and documentation to reduce liability
  • Best practices for an effective and meaningful discipline process
  • The pros-and-cons/ins-and-outs of “Progressive Discipline”
  • The very real risk of retaliation liability
  • Voluntary quits versus “constructive” terminations
  • Wrongful termination claims in at-will employment

Seminar

9:00 am – 9:30 am  – Registration & Breakfast
9:30 am – 11:30am  – Seminar

Webinar: This seminar is also available via webinar. Please indicate in your RSVP if you will be attending via webinar.

Location

Weintraub Tobin Office

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor | Sacramento, CA 95814

Parking Validation provided. Please park in the Wells Fargo parking garage, entrances on 4th and 5th Street. Please bring your parking ticket with you to the 11th floor.

Approved for two (2) hours MCLE.   This program will be submitted to the HR Certification Institute for review. Certificates will be provided upon verification of attendance for the entirety of the webcast.

There is no cost for this seminar. 
*This seminar will be limited to 75 in-person attendees.

Please RSVP by Monday, February 20th to Ramona Carrillo at rcarrillo@weintraub.com.

While the Department of Labor may have stayed any national increases to the minimum exemption salary thresholds for the time being, New York employers have not been granted the same reprieve. Effective December 31, 2016, the New York Department of Labor announced incremental increases to its minimum wage laws. With the increased minimum wages, increases were also made to the corresponding salary thresholds applicable to the executive and administrative exemptions to New York’s overtime laws. In New York, the exemption for professional employees has no salary threshold.

Read the rest of the article at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/increases-to-new-york-minimum-wage-and-salary-thresholds/.

The United States Supreme Court decided last week to resolve a split in the lower courts as to whether the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) preempts class-action waiver clauses in arbitration agreements between employers and their employees.  This is an important development, as the use of such waivers in arbitration agreements (if permissible) can drastically reduce an employer’s exposure to costly class actions alleging overtime violations, missed meal-and-rest periods, and other types of claims.   Brenden-Begley-05_web

A number of courts (including the appellate courts that hear appeals from federal courts in California and Illinois) agreed with the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) that the Act invalidates those waivers.  Meanwhile, three other federal appellate courts rejected the Board’s position.  Stepping into the fray, the high court last week decided to review two decisions that agreed with the Board and one that disagreed with the Board; namely, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (No. 16-285), Ernst & Young v. Morris (No. 16-300), and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (No. 16-307).

The Supreme Court currently has just eight justices after the death last year of Justice Scalia, who authored a significant pro-arbitration opinion in 2011.  Without a replacement for Justice Scalia being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the high court may split 4-4 on the resolution of these three cases, which have been consolidated.  Such a result most likely would create confusion rather than clarity as to the state of the law.  Accordingly, the issue may not be resolved without a ninth justice on the Supreme Court’s bench.

The takeaway here for employers is that it may be too soon to discard those class-action waivers.

Count the Fifth Circuit among the latest to allow emotional distress damages to employees who successfully sue for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In a December 19, 2016 opinion, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court should have allowed the jury to receive an instruction on emotional distress damages when it was considering an employee’s FLSA retaliation claim.  In the same opinion, however, the Fifth Circuit did clarify that only employees can bring claims under the FLSA.

The Case

Plaintiffs Santiago Pineda and Maria Pena are a married couple who lived together in an apartment owned by the defendant, JTCH Apartments.  Pena leased the apartment from JTCH.  Pineda performed maintenance work around the complex.  As part of Pineda’s compensation, JTCH discounted Pena’s rent.  After Pineda brought a claim seeking unpaid overtime under the FLSA, JTCH served Pena with a notice to vacate for nonpayment of rent in the exact amount that it had discounted for Pineda’s maintenance work.  Upon receiving the notice, Pineda amended his lawsuit to assert a retaliation claim.  Pena joined the lawsuit to assert her own FLSA retaliation claim.

During trial, the district court awarded JTCH judgment as a matter of law against Pena on the ground that she was not JTCH’s employee and only employees could file suit under the FLSA.  The jury found in Pineda’s favor on his claims, but the district court refused his request that the jury receive an instruction on emotional distress damages for his FLSA claim.  Both Pineda and Pena appealed.

To read the full article, please visit the HRUSA webpage at  http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/emotional-distress-damages-allowed-under-flsa/