United States: Employment Law Commentary - Volume 23, No. 10 - October 2011

Last Updated: November 2 2011
Article by Colette M. LeBon and Timothy F. Ryan

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – THE BILLS ARE NOW GETTING SIGNED

By Colette LeBon

Almost thirty years after his first stint as governor of California, Jerry Brown is back at the helm of California. Predictably, many of the employee-friendly bills which died on former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk have found new life under Governor Brown.

In addition to the general impact of these bills on all employers with California employees, this year's legislation especially affects employers that: pay employees a commission, classify workers as independent contractors, hire or contract farm workers, or use consumer credit reports in making employment decisions. Below are summaries of the new bills and tips on getting prepared to meet the new requirements going into effect on January 1, 2012.

Bills Signed Into Law

Wage Theft Prevention Act (A.B. 469)

Similar to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act that went into effect earlier this year, California's legislation will require new wage notices to employees, with stiff criminal penalties in addition to existing remedies for wage violations. Beginning January 1, 2012, in addition to existing posting and wage statement requirements, employers must provide a written notice to an employee at the time of hire meeting the following criteria:

  • The notice must state: the rate of pay; basis for that rate (hourly, salary, commission, or otherwise); allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage (e.g., meal or lodging allowances); date of pay; name of the employer, including any "dba" names used; telephone number and address (physical and mailing, if different) of the employer; name, address, and telephone number of the employer's workers' compensation carrier; and any other information deemed "material and necessary" by the Labor Commissioner.
  • The notice must be provided in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to the employee. While not specifically required, best practice will be to provide the notice in both English and the employee's native language.
  • The employer must notify the employee within 7 calendar days of any changes to this information, unless it is reflected on a timely wage statement.

And some good news:

  • The notice does not have to be provided to exempt employees or those covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
  • The Labor Commissioner will provide a template for the notice.

Buried in its myriad other provisions, this bill also increases the time to maintain payroll records from two to three years. Employers should review and update, if necessary, all document retention policies as soon as possible to reflect this change.

Additional Penalties for Independent Contractor Misclassification (S.B. 459)

S.B. 459 creates additional penalties for the "willful misclassification" of employees as independent contractors. Unfortunately, the legislature has supplied no additional guidance regarding the standards for classifying employees as independent contractors. These penalties also apply if a person misclassified as an independent contractor is charged a fee for any cost of doing business (for goods, materials, retail space, etc.) which would have been unlawful to charge to an employee. These penalties include:

  • A penalty between $5,000 and $15,000 for each violation in addition to existing penalties and fines;
  • A penalty between $10,000 and $25,000 for each violation in addition to existing penalties or fines if the conduct is determined to be a "pattern or practice";
  • If the employer is a licensed contractor, notification of the Contractor's State License Board for disciplinary action;
  • Mandatory posting for one year, on the employer's website or prominent physical location at its business if the employer has no website, a notice that the employer has willfully misclassified employees as independent contractors and has changed its business practices to avoid committing further violations.

Liability for misclassification will also attach to a non-lawyer outside consultant who advised the employer to treat the individual as an independent contractor.

Employers should carefully review and audit all independent contractor relationships with the advice of counsel before this new law takes effect.

Limited Use of Credit Reports in Employment Decisions (A.B. 22)

Effective on January 1, 2012, employers may no longer use a consumer credit report for employment purposes in California, unless the position of the person for whom the report is sought meets any of the following criteria:

  • A "managerial" position (i.e., an employee who falls under the executive exemption);
  • A position in the state Department of Justice;
  • A sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position;
  • A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained;
  • A position involving regular access to (1) the bank or credit card account information, (2) the Social Security number, or (3) the date of birth of any one person;
  • A position held by (1) a named signatory on the employer's bank or credit card account, (2) someone authorized to transfer money on behalf of the employer, or (3) someone authorized to enter into financial contracts on the behalf of the employer;
  • A position that involves access to trade secrets; or
  • A position that involves regular access to cash totaling $10,000 or more of the employer, a customer, or a client, during the workday.

By A.B. 22's terms, a consumer credit report is limited to a report which contains credit-related information, such as credit history, credit score, or credit record. Therefore, employers may continue to perform criminal background checks on potential hires in accordance with federal and California law, as long as such a report does not include credit-related information.

Before this bill takes effect, employers should evaluate the positions for which they currently use employment reports and determine which, if any, fit into the exceptions to this bill. For positions which do not fit into the exceptions, employers should begin to transition away from their current use of consumer credit reports in making employment decisions to ensure compliance with this new bill by January 1.

Written Commission Agreements (A.B. 1396)

A.B. 1396 will require all employers paying their employees a commission as any part of a compensation package to provide the commission plan in writing. There will be plenty of time to adjust to this new law as its requirements do not take effect until January 1, 2013. However, if it is not already usual practice, it is prudent to begin providing all commissioned employees with a written commission plan now to minimize later disputes.

This bill was written to provide the protections originally intended by Labor Code section 2751, which required out of state employers paying California employees on a commission basis to put the commission agreements in writing. This law was held unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in Lett v. Paymentech, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 1999), because it violated the commerce clause and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating in-state and out-of-state employers differently. A.B. 1396 remedies this disparity by requiring all employers to provide a written contract to California employees paid a commission. Also, A.B. 1396 improves upon Labor Code section 2751 by eliminating the provision allowing an aggrieved employee to sue for treble damages.

Liability for Interference with Pregnancy Leave (A.B. 592)

A recent unpublished California Court of Appeals decision, Harris v. CashCall, Inc., No. G042578, 2011 WL 1085116, highlighted that California's Pregnancy Disability Leave Act is unclear about whether "interfering" with pregnancy leave is unlawful, as it is under federal law. A.B. 592 resolves this issue by amending the California Family Rights Act and Pregnancy Disability Leave Act to extend liability to interference with an employee's right to take leave under the Acts. Although the bill does not take effect until January 1, 2012, the bill states that these provisions are declaratory of existing law. Therefore, plaintiffs may argue that these changes should be applied retroactively in pending cases.

Employer-Provided Health Benefits to Employees on Pregnancy Leave (S.B. 299)

This bill requires an employer with 5 or more employees to pay for and maintain a female employee's health care coverage for 4 months of pregnancy leave at the same level as if the employee were not on leave. If the employee fails to return to work following the leave, the employer can recoup the costs paid for the coverage. Currently, employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide such coverage for 12 weeks of leave. This provision, then, requires employers with 50 or more employees to pay for an extra month of insurance during pregnancy leave, and imposes these same requirements on small employers

Gender Non-Discrimination Act (A.B. 887)

A.B. 887 amends California's non-discrimination statutes to add the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" where only the term "gender" currently appears as a protected category. Further, the law defines gender expression as "a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's sex at birth." Because California law has already defined gender to include these terms, these amendments only clarify existing law and do not create new liabilities for employers. However, the new law will require an employer to allow an employee to appear or dress consistently with the employee's gender expression, in addition to the employee's gender identity, as is currently required under the law.

Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (S.B. 559)

The federal Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act, known as GINA, was passed in 2008 to prohibit discrimination in employment and health insurance. Codifying into state law the provisions of its federal counterpart, California's GINA will prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as in state programs or in programs receiving financial assistance from the state. Although the federal GINA only applies to employers with 15 or more employees, California's GINA will apply to all employers of employees in California.

No Mandatory Use of E-Verify: Employment Acceleration Act of 2011 (A.B. 1236)

In recognition of the inaccuracies in the E-Verify system and the costs its use impose on businesses and workers, this bill prohibits the state and any municipality from mandating the use of the E-Verify system, or any other electronic employment verification system. The bill also prohibits conditioning the receipt of a government contract or business license on an employer's use of E-Verify.

Agricultural Labor Compromise (S.B. 126)

Although Governor Brown vetoed the sweeping changes S.B. 104 sought to make to the secret ballot election process in the Agricultural Labor Relations Act ("ALRA"), he signed S.B. 126. S.B. 126 seeks to remedy the existing secret ballot process rather than scrap it. In addition to other changes to the election and unfair labor practices procedures under the ALRA, the bill provides that if the Agricultural Labor Relations Board sets aside an election due to employer misconduct that would render slight the chances of a new free and fair election, the labor organization shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the bargaining unit.

New Wage Statement Requirements for Farm Labor Contractors (A.B. 243)

This bill amends Labor Code section 226 to require that farm labor contractors include the name and address of the grower on employee wage statements. This bill may encourage farm workers to seek redress for the unlawful wage practices of their employer, the farm labor contractor, from a grower complying with all applicable laws. Make sure any farm labor contractors you contract with are following all applicable wage laws.

Liquidated Damages for Administrative Wage Claims (A.B. 240)

Existing law allows workers alleging they were paid less than the minimum wage to seek liquidated damages in civil suits under Labor Code section 1194.2. Upon the employer's showing of good faith, the court can exercise its discretion in determining whether an award of liquidated damages is appropriate. A.B. 240 extends Labor Code section 1194.2 to permit an award of liquidated damages in an administrative action for unpaid minimum wages before the Labor Commissioner.

Bone Marrow/Organ Donation Leave (S.B. 272)

This bill amends Labor Code section 1510 regarding paid leaves of absence for employees while donating organs or bone marrow. The bill clarifies the existing vague law in several ways, most importantly to clarify the amount of earned vacation time an employee can be required to take as a condition of their leave.

Vetoed Bills

Payroll Card Regulation (S.B. 931)

Under S.B. 931, an employer whose employees opted to receive wages on payroll cards would have been required to ensure the employee received many free account services along with the provision of the card, including at least five free ATM withdrawals per month and two free point-of-sale transactions, along with other services. Governor Brown vetoed the bill because he believed the costly new requirements would likely cause banks and employers to cease offering payroll cards altogether.

However, this legislation is not dead: Brown vowed to work together with legislators and banks to regulate the use of payroll cards.

Mandatory Unpaid Bereavement Leave (A.B. 325)

This bill, viewed as a job killer by the California Chamber of Commerce, would have allowed employees to take up to three days of unpaid bereavement leave upon the death of a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or domestic partner. It also would have created a private right of action for an employee who faced adverse action after taking such leave. Noting his concern about this bill's far reaching private right to sue over benefits that most employers provide voluntarily, Governor Brown vetoed the bill.

Agricultural Workers Card Check Legislation (S.B. 104)

This bill, vetoed by Governor Brown in June, would have amounted to a significant overhaul of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in California. It would have limited agricultural workers' ability to vote for unionization in the workplace by secret ballot by implementing a card check system which would require the employer to recognize a union when a majority of the workers have signed authorization cards.

Interference with Employment Contracts (A.B. 267)

This bill would have prohibited employment contracts that require California employees to agree to the use of legal forums and/or laws of other states. Concerned that such a law might deter out of state employers from hiring Californians, Governor Brown vetoed the bill.

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - NLRB UNDER ATTACK

By Colette LeBon

On a federal level, with the House of Representatives in Republican control and the Senate controlled by Democrats, it is unlikely any significant labor or employment legislation will make it to President Obama. The current fight over the power of the National Labor Relations Board is indicative of this overall split.

The Republican-led House of Representatives is attacking the decision-making power of the now 3-member National Labor Relations Board. In September, the House passed H.R. 2587, the "Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act" as a direct response to the NLRB's action against a single employer, Boeing. The NLRB claims Boeing has transferred work away from its unionized plant in Washington State to a new non-union aircraft assembly facility in South Carolina in retaliation for past strikes. The new bill, which was passed along party lines in the House and has very little chance of success in the Democratic Senate, would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to restore, relocate, or transfer employment, or to rescind outsourcing.

In the last two months, the House Education and Workforce Committee announced two additional bills which would also significantly limit the powers of the NLRB. The "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act," H.R. 3094, is a direct response to two NLRB actions in late August. First, the bill targets the NLRB's proposed regulations to speed up unionization elections. The bill would require 14 days between the employer's receipt of the representative petition and the pre-election hearing, and a total of 35 days before the election can be held. Second, the bill counters the Board's decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile by requiring the Board to avoid "fragmentation" of bargaining units. This bill is currently being amended in committee. While it has a minimal chance to pass the Senate, it may have broader appeal than the other anti- NLRB bills, depending on its final form.

The "National Labor Relations Reorganization Act," H.R. 2926, would abolish the NLRB and transfer its oversight of elections to the Office of Labor- Management Standards of the Department of Labor. Further, the NLRB's enforcement authority would be vested in a new Bureau of Labor Relations Enforcement within the Department of Justice. Representative Trey Gowdy, the bill's sponsor, declared upon introducing the bill: "The NLRB has lost its usefulness and needs to be dissolved." Senate Democrats, however, are not very likely to be persuaded that this is the case.

COMING TO A BULLETIN BOARD NEAR YOU

By Timothy Ryan

At a time when union membership continues to decline, the National Labor Relations Board has proposed a Rule that takes aim at the vast majority of American workers who remain non-union.

The Rule is called "Proposed Rules Governing Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act" (the "Rule"). The Rule would require most private employers to post a Notice "in conspicuous places" where notices to employees are customarily posted. Employers are required to post the notice in English, unless a significant number of its employees use a language which is not English, in which case notice must additionally be given in the other language.

The requirement to post a Notice applies to most private sector employers, but excludes agricultural, railroad, and airline employees, and some very small employers whose business volume is so slight that they do not affect interstate commerce.

What the Notice Says

The required Notice explains, in part, that employees have the right to select a union to negotiate with their employer on their behalf; to discuss wages and benefits with co-workers or a union; to raise work-related complaints with their employers; to strike and picket; or to choose to do none of those activities.

The Notice explains that it is unlawful for an employer to engage in certain activity, such as restricting employees' ability, on their own time, to discuss wages, hours and working conditions with their fellow co-workers; to threaten employees with discipline for engaging in the protected activities stated above; to question employees about their union sympathies or their communication with other workers about work-related matters; or to engage in other like activity.

Effective Date

The Rule was initially slated to take effect on November 14, 2011. Recently, the Board extended the time for posting until January 31, 2012. In the press release announcing the extension, the NLRB noted that it had received questions from businesses and trade organizations, which indicate uncertainty about which businesses fall under the Board's jurisdiction.

Business groups have filed lawsuits to prevent the new Rule from ever going into effect. The National Association of Manufacturers and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Fund, among others, have asked the federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the NLRB from implementing the Rule. A hearing on the case is schedule for December 19, 2011. The Chamber of Commerce has filed a similar lawsuit in South Carolina.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions