California Employers: Do You Know When Your Furlough is a Discharge?

Posted by:

California Employers: Do You Know When Your Furlough is a Discharge?

To employers, it may seem like California regulates nearly everything about employment relations. Yet, surprisingly, statutes and courts in California never answered the question of when a temporary layoff becomes a “discharge” of furloughed employees. That is, until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did so recently in Hartstein v. Hyatt Corporation, 82 F.4th 825. The implications of this new ruling for California employers and employees are considerable.

Under the new ruling, any temporary layoff or furlough of employees without a specific return-to-work date within the employees’ regular pay period is considered a “discharge” under California Labor Code Section 201. That in turn triggers an immediate obligation for employers to pay all laid off employees all of the wages they have earned, including any pay owed for accrued vacation or Paid Time Off (“PTO”). Failure to pay in full all accrued wages, vacation and PTO when due runs the risk of substantial “waiting time penalties” under Labor Code Section 203. That can be a huge burden and risk for employers, as the Hartstein case demonstrated.

Hartstein arose during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many businesses were forced to greatly reduce or cease business operations without knowing when they would be able to reopen. In March 2020 Hyatt, like many employers, furloughed thousands of employees and was unable to provide any specific return-to-work date. Hyatt advised employees that vacation and PTO would not accrue during the temporary layoff, and Hyatt offered to pay any accrued vacation to employees upon request. A month later, in June 2020, Hyatt sent a letter advising employees that the temporary layoff had become permanent and employees would be paid their accrued vacation and PTO as required by Labor Code Section § 201 when a “discharge” occurs.

Hyatt employee Karen Hartstein filed a class-action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit, arguing that a “discharge” had occurred with the indefinite temporary layoff in March 2020, and not when employees were permanently laid off in June 2020. The key question was whether a temporary layoff, lacking a specified return date, constituted a “discharge” under Labor Code Section 201, which had no definition of “discharge.” No previous published case had addressed the issue.

The Ninth Circuit turned to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for guidance in its previously-issued Opinion and its Policies and Interpretations Manual. DLSE had indicated that, when an employee is laid off without a specified return date within the regular pay period, the employer must immediately give the employee a final paycheck that includes vested vacation pay. DLSE reasoned that this interpretation best aligned with the statute’s purpose of protecting workers and ensuring prompt payment of earned wages.

The Ninth Circuit characterized Hyatt’s actions as “understandable given the uncertainty during the early period of the pandemic,” but remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Hyatt’s failure to issue full final paychecks in March 2020 constituted a “willful” violation, which would expose Hyatt to waiting time penalties. That question remains open and will be watched closely by employment lawyers.

Hartstein v. Hyatt provides new guidance to California employers who may need to implement open-ended furloughs or temporary shutdowns. This decision has made clear that California employers who furlough or temporarily lay off employees without specifying a return-to-work date within the same pay period should immediately issue final paychecks that include each employee’s vested and unused vacation or PTO.

Hartstein v. Hyatt demonstrates again that employment law in California is constantly evolving, and outcomes may not be as predictable as employers would hope. California employers facing such issues are well-advised to consult with qualified employment counsel to stay up-to-date on these and other important employment issues. Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s attorneys can help advise employers in navigating these complex and evolving issues.

 

8
NOV
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Class Actions, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AB51, California’s Law Against Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, is Invalidated

Posted by:

AB51, California’s Law Against Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, is Invalidated

California employers – especially those that required employees to sign arbitration agreements – have reason to celebrate. On February 15, 2023, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, (Case No. 20-15291) 2023 WL 2013326 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2023), ruled that AB 51, a California law effectively prohibiting and criminalizing mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements, is invalid because it is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

This development was not unexpected, as the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered a series of decisions supporting arbitration and striking down state laws prohibiting arbitration clauses in employment contracts as violations of the FAA. Yet despite this precedent, the California legislature has tried time and time again to enact anti-arbitration laws that creatively seek to avoid FAA preemption. AB 51 was the most recent attempt to circumvent the FAA.

AB 51 added California Labor Code Section 432.6, which prohibited employers from: (1) requiring employees to waive, as a condition of employment, the right to litigate certain claims in court; and (2) retaliating against applicants for employment or employees based on their refusal to waive such rights. Id. at (a) & (b). These two prohibitions by themselves would almost surely be preempted by the FAA but the California legislature sought to avoid that result by adding § 432.6(f), providing that nothing “in this section is intended to invalidate a written arbitration agreement that is otherwise enforceable under the [FAA].” To give the statute teeth, AB 51 also amended other codes to impose civil and criminal liability on an employer who violates Labor Code Section 432.6. Together, these provisions had the strange effect of imposing criminal and civil liability on employers who enter into arbitration agreements that are valid and enforceable.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States filed a lawsuit seeking to declare that AB 51 was preempted by the FAA. In 2020, the trial court granted temporary injunctions against enforcement of AB51, because the court found that the Chamber of Commerce was likely to succeed in establishing that AB51 is preempted by the FAA. For that reason, employers did not feel the brunt of AB51 while the challenge made its way through appellate court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (after some unusual twists, including a published decision that was later withdrawn by the Court) ultimately agreed with the trial court. The Ninth Circuit held that although AB 51 does not expressly prevent the formation of employment contracts containing an arbitration provision, it clearly disfavors the formation of arbitration agreements by placing civil and criminal liability on employers who require employees to sign arbitration agreements. That kind of penalty is an exception to generally applicable law that allows employers to require agreements, such as confidentiality agreements, as a condition of employment. The Ninth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that “state rules that burden the formation of arbitration agreements stand as an obstacle to the FAA.” Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1423 (2017). In addressing AB 51’s strange mechanism of imposing liability for the formation of valid contracts, the Court held that that “[a] state rule interferes with arbitration if it discriminates against arbitration on its face or if it covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.” Id. The Court held that “[b]ecause the FAA’s purpose is to further Congress’s policy of encouraging arbitration, and AB 51 stands as an obstacle to that purpose, AB 51 is preempted.” Id., at *10.

California employers should welcome this decision. The decision clarifies that businesses have broader freedom to contract as they see fit, and that it is permissible, even in California, to require employees to sign mandatory arbitration provisions as a condition of employment. The overall perception is that arbitration results in faster, less expensive resolution of employee-employer disputes, and keeps employment disputes out of California courts. Still, there are other schools of thought that believe that employment arbitrations can be more expensive for employers than the courts because private arbitrators often charge high hourly rates, the fees and costs of the arbitration must be advanced by employers, and dispositive motion victories (for example, a successful motion to dismiss a frivolous claim) are less common in arbitration. As well, even if arbitration is enforceable some employees may file their claims in court in the hope that the employer fails to take action to enforce arbitration.

Moreover, there are important limitations on employment arbitration agreements in California. In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000), the California Supreme Court held that employer-employee arbitration agreements may be “unconscionable” and unenforceable if they do not include provisions for: (1) a neutral arbitrator; (2) all remedies allowed under statutes; (3) adequate discovery procedures; (4) a written and well-reasoned arbitration decision; and (5) the employer’s payment of all costs unique to the arbitration process itself.

It is predictable that the same labor groups that supported AB 51 will continue to try to develop alternative measures to restrict employment arbitration agreements. Employers are well-advised to consult with well-qualified employment attorneys to stay on the right side of the rapidly changing laws. The attorneys at the Conkle firm stay abreast of developments and are well equipped to help your business navigate all aspects of wage & hour, discrimination, class actions, Private Attorney General (PAGA) claims and employment law, including the intersection of employment arbitration and litigation. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys have many years of experience drafting arbitration provisions in conformance with California law and handling employment disputes—whether in arbitration or litigation.

Amanda Washton and Alec Pressly

24
FEB
0

Class Actions, Contracts, Contracts, Business and Finance, Discrimination, Employment Law, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Changing Messages from Courts on AB 51: Now Employers Cannot Require Arbitration Agreements

Posted by:

Changing Messages from Courts on AB 51: Now Employers Cannot Require Arbitration Agreements

Note:  For updated developments on the long-running saga of AB 51, see our February 2023 blog post: “AB51, California’s Law Against Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, is Invalidated”

For those employers who have been following the evolving history of Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which regulates California employers’ ability to have agreements to arbitrate any disputes with their prospective or hired employees, there is a new twist:  In a September 15, 2021 decision, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., et al. v. Bonta, et al., Case No. 20-15291, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a District Court decision to conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) did not preempt California AB 51’s ban on employment conditioned upon mandatory arbitration agreements. As explained below, this Ninth Circuit ruling may soon have a substantial impact on employers’ arbitration policies going forward.

In 2019, California passed AB 51, which added section 432.6 to the California Labor Code and section 12953 to the California Government Code to generally prohibit employers from requiring applicants or employees to agree to arbitrate as a condition of employment. AB 51 made it illegal for an employer to require applicants or employees, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, to waive any rights, forum, or procedure established by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the California Labor Code. The Conkle firm has written previously about the potential effects of AB 51.

AB 51 had been set to take effect on January 1, 2020, but on December 30, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction, preventing AB51 from taking effect. Judge Mueller concluded that “AB 51 placed agreements to arbitrate on unequal footing with other contracts and also that it stood as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of the FAA.” Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 12. In other words, Judge Mueller decided that AB 51 discriminated against arbitration agreements in a manner that is prohibited by the superseding federal law of arbitrations, the FAA.

California appealed Judge Mueller’s ruling.  On September 15, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split (2-1) decision partially reversing the District Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that the FAA did not preempt AB 51 with respect to its prevention of conditioning employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement. On this basis, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that had stopped AB 51’s enforcement, so at present there is nothing stopping AB 51 from taking effect very soon.

For employers, this means that, unless there are further decisions by the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court, AB 51’s mandate that employers cannot condition employment or continued employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement will shortly go into effect. However, employers should be aware that AB 51 does not apply retroactively, which means that arbitration agreements previously signed by employers before AB 51 can still be enforced.  ([Proposed] Labor Code §432(f).)

A common question Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are receiving is whether, even under AB 51, an employer is allowed to request that employees or prospective employees sign an arbitration agreement. The answer is yes. However, because the Ninth Circuit’s decision is somewhat muddled on this point, there is no clear answer to the natural follow up question, “What can I do if the employee refuses?”

The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the enforcement provisions of AB 51 are preempted “to the extent that they apply to executed arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.” Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 29. The dissent in Bonta attacks the majority’s reasoning as illogical:

In case the effect of this novel holding is not clear, it means that if the employer offers an arbitration agreement to the prospective employee as a condition of employment, and the prospective employee executes the agreement, the employer may not be held civilly or criminally liable. But if the prospective employee refuses to sign, then the FAA does not preempt civil and criminal liability for the employer under AB 51’s provisions.

Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 47. As the dissent argues, the majority’s reasoning could result in liability to the employer where the employer fails while attempting to engage in the prohibited conduct of forcing an employee or prospective employee to sign an arbitration agreement, but the employer would not have liability when the employer succeeds in engaging in that same prohibited conduct.

What does this ultimately mean for employers? We expect the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to be challenged by a request for an en banc review by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit’s justices, or by a writ to the U.S. Supreme Court (which has recently been quite hostile to Ninth Circuit rulings that it has chosen to review).  Such a challenge could result in yet another “stay” that would effectively restore the injunction issued by Judge Mueller and preclude AB 51 from taking effect. However, unless a stay is issued, AB 51 is set to go into effect in the near future.

While much uncertainty remains as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, AB 51 will increase potential liability for employers that condition employment on arbitration agreements, as well as provide more power to employees who do not wish to arbitrate. Employers that currently have policies conditioning employment or continued employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement should continue to monitor the status of AB 51, should prepare for the possibility that it will not be able to require arbitration agreements going forward and should reevaluate the benefits and risks related to conditioning employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement.

CK&E attorneys keep updated on developments in the law that affect employers in California, including their rights to arbitrate disputes with applicants and employees.  Stay tuned for additional developments in this saga of AB 51.

30
SEP
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Class Actions, Contracts, Business and Finance, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can Employers Require Employees to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19?

Posted by:

Can Employers Require Employees to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19?

As we have discussed in previous Coronavirus-related blog posts, employers have a general duty to provide a safe and healthy workplace that is free from serious recognized hazards where possible (meaning that such hazards are either nonexistent, eliminated, or reduced to a safe or acceptable level).  While most regions have tiered or priority programs in which newly-released COVID-19 vaccines will only be made available to certain age groups or industry sectors after higher-risk individuals are vaccinated, as the vaccines are made more widely available, “essential” employers and employers who may be planning to resume or increase the scope of their on-premises operations may see vaccination as an important tool to ensure the maximum level of safety within their workplaces.

These employers likely have many questions about COVID-19 vaccines, such as whether they may be able to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition to being permitted at the workplace, how a vaccination program implicates disability and other related privacy issues and laws, and whether not requiring such vaccinations (or leaving it up to employees) could open them up to potential liability.

Addressing some of these concerns, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released guidance for employers regarding workplace vaccine mandates (see Section K). While the EEOC guidance does not make any blanket rule regarding the permissibility of mandatory vaccinations, it does give recommendations on how an employer should navigate the various concerns that arise in administering a vaccination program.  (But be aware that state health departments may release guidance or rules different from the EEOC and that union workers in particular may have collective bargaining agreements containing particular rules that must be taken into account.)

Vaccines are not Medical Examinations Under the ADA, but Employers Should be Careful with Inquiries Surrounding a Vaccine

The EEOC guidance initially provides that the administration of Coronavirus vaccines is not considered a “medical examination” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that employers should be careful when posing any pre-screening vaccination questions to their employees that might implicate the ADA’s rules regarding inquiries which are likely to elicit information about an employee disability.  Any pre-screening questions (i.e. to determine whether there is a medical reason that would prevent the employee from receiving the vaccine) must be job-related and consistent with business necessity – an employer must have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that an employee that does not answer pre-screening questions and does not receive the vaccine will pose a direct threat to the health or safety of herself or others.  Though the EEOC has previously stated that “based on the guidance of the CDC and public health authorities […] the COVID-19 pandemic meets the direct threat standard,” this assessment may change moving forward, and an employer’s response to the “direct threat” concern will likely differ depending on industry and other workplace contexts.  In workplaces with significant worker density or customer contact, the threat is generally considered greater than in workplaces with limited interpersonal contact or the ability to work from home.  Under the guidance, these concerns apply equally to requests for an employee to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccine – the request by itself is not a disability-related inquiry, but any questions asking for reasons for not obtaining a vaccine may be.

The guidance identifies two circumstances in which disability-related screening questions can be asked of employees without needing to satisfy the “job-related and consistent with business necessity” requirement.  First, if the vaccination program is voluntary rather than mandatory, an employee’s decision to answer screening questions is also voluntary.  In such case, if an employee declines to answer screening questions an employer can decline to administer the vaccine, but the employer cannot retaliate against that employee in any manner for her decision.  The second circumstance is when employees receive an employer-required vaccination from a third party not under contract with the employer, such as a pharmacy.  However, the guidance cautions that any employee medical information obtained in the course of a vaccination program must be kept confidential by the employer, and that employers should advise employees not to provide medical information to the employer when providing proof of vaccination.

If an Employee Cannot Receive the Vaccine due to Disability or Religious Belief, Employers Must Try to Make Accomodations Where Feasible

Per the guidance, if an employee indicates that she is unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a disability, employers must conduct an individualized assessment of four factors in determining whether there is a direct threat to the health or safety of others in the workplace – the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm.  An employer cannot exclude an unvaccinated employee from the workplace unless there is no way to provide a reasonable accommodation to that employee that will eliminate or satisfactorily reduce the threat without undue hardship to the employer.  If such a threat cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, the employer can forbid the employee’s physical presence at the workplace.  However, this does not mean the employer may automatically terminate the employee – in some cases, the employee may be able to work remotely or may be eligible to take leave under various Coronavirus-related legislation, state law, or the employer’s own policies.  Employers should be sensitive to accommodation requests by employees and should engage in an interactive process that takes into account the nature of the industry, the employee’s role, CDC or other health official guidance regarding the current prevalence and severity of Coronavirus outbreaks, and whether an accommodation poses significant expense or difficulty to the employer.

The same standards and practices apply if an employee’s sincerely held religious belief prevents the employee from receiving the vaccine – while an employer should assume that a professed belief is sincerely held, if there is an objective basis for questioning the claimed belief, the employer may be justified in requesting additional information.

Further, the guidance refers to FDA literature providing that particularly because the COVID-19 vaccine is available under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) instead of traditional FDA approval, any person may opt out of receiving the vaccine.  As such, even if it is unclear whether disability or religious concerns motivate an employee’s decision to decline a vaccine, an employer should still likely make whatever reasonable accommodations are possible based on individualized assessments of the four factors described above.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) is not Implicated by Employer Administration of a Coronavirus Vaccine

The guidance provides that because the COVID-19 vaccines, even though they use mRNA technology, do not involve the use of genetic information to make employment decisions or require the employer’s acquisition or the employee’s disclosure of employees’ genetic information.  However, as with disability concerns, employers should be careful to avoid pre-screening questions that specifically seek to obtain “genetic information” about their employees, which can include information about family medical history.

Practical Impacts for Employers Based on the Guidance

Based on the foregoing, employers, depending on the industry and the threat that unvaccinated workers may pose in a particular workplace, may find it easier to encourage but not necessarily require Coronavirus vaccinations, and, if vaccinations are required, employers may find it easier to have employees obtain the vaccines from third parties rather than the employer administering the vaccines.  Employers who do decide to create a vaccination program should create a thoughtful, formal process that both demonstrates reasonable efforts to maintain a workplace free of “direct threats” given the context of the business and takes the various health and privacy-related laws into account.  Protocols should be well-documented, including pre-screening questions and opt-out situations but, again, documentation must be held confidentially and employee inquiries should be narrow.  In some industries (for example, the California health care industry), employers are required to offer certain vaccines to their employees free of charge (and to provide technical information to employees regarding the vaccine itself), though it is unclear whether that requirement would be expanded to all California employers with respect to the COVID-19 vaccine.

An employer with employees who decline to take the vaccine may wish to have those employees sign a statement acknowledging the risks to that employee in making that decision, similar to the declination statement required in health care workplaces in California, and/or a liability waiver.  The employer may also want to post prominent signage or bulletins in its workplace regarding its Coronavirus protocols (which is already required in many instances) that includes some manner of information about the business’ vaccination policy in order to allow customers and others who enter the premises to be informed.  While such documentation may not eliminate liability, it may help to reduce it.

As always, the law surrounding Coronavirus issues in the workplace is constantly evolving.  The foregoing is not intended to be an exhaustive representation of federal, state, and local laws and directives regarding COVID-19, but is rather general information about some of the EEOC’s latest positions and how employers might be able to utilize those positions in the context of the particulars of their own workplaces.  Employers should always consult with the experienced attorneys before taking steps to implement a vaccination policy.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay up to date and are ready to help employers understand and implement practices regarding the Coronavirus vaccine in their  particular workplace circumstances.

23
JAN
0

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act, Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Discrimination, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LGBTQ Discrimination is Now Prohibited Nationally, but California was Ahead of the Trend

Posted by:

LGBTQ Discrimination is Now Prohibited Nationally, but California was Ahead of the Trend

As headlines across the country have blared, on June 15, 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that firing an individual for being homosexual or transgender is unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. But this rule is nothing new in California, which has long prohibited employment and housing discrimination on the basis of an individual’s LGBTQ characteristics.

Title VII’s message is “simple but momentous”: An individual employee’s sex is “not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.” The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, U.S. Supreme Court

In bold and straightforward language the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock decision affirmed that any consideration of sex, homosexuality or transgender status in the course of adverse employment decisions is a violation of Title VII, even if there were other factors in the decision:

An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff ’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.

California’s equivalent rule is based on its Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prevents employers from in any manner “discriminating” against persons based on their sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation (among many other protected classes). While news stories about the Bostock decision emphasized hiring and firing decisions, “discrimination” can involve much broader employment concerns that involve consideration of prohibited classifications, such as:

  • – Transferring, demoting or taking other “adverse employment actions” with respect to an employee
  • – Paying an employee less than similarly situated employees
  • – Providing fewer or worse benefits to an employee than similarly situated employees
  • – Requiring additional conditions of employment for one employee compared to similarly situated employees

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision did not weaken California’s existing protections for gay and transgender individuals, but provides an additional source of protection for them. California employers should continue to actively prohibit and take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace, and keep in mind that unlawful “discrimination” can encompass many types of adverse employment actions beyond hiring and firing decisions.

To guide our business clients, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay updated on the latest developments in employment law, including anti-discrimination and wage & hour concerns.

18
JUN
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Discrimination, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Limiting Risks When Reopening Your Business After COVID-19 Shutdown

Posted by:

Limiting Risks When Reopening Your Business After COVID-19 Shutdown

Many businesses are understandably eager to resume operations as the restrictions to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus loosen. Beginning in the second week in May 2020, businesses in some sectors of California’s economy were permitted to reopen, as the state entered Stage 2 of Governor Gavin Newsom’s plan to reopen the economy.

As the state continues its efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that businesses will look very different when they reopen. While taking reasonable steps to prevent illness in the workplace is always advisable practice, it is paramount now. As businesses reopen, they must ensure that they are taking all necessary precautions to protect the health and safety of their employees, customers, and visitors. In doing so, businesses may well protect themselves from exposure to liability down the road.

STAY CURRENT AND DEVELOP A PLAN FOR BUSINESS REOPENING

Businesses should closely monitor government directives related to COVID-19 at the federal, state and local level, and ensure they are in compliance. Being out of compliance with current recognized legal standards is a sure invitation to liability claims if someone can show they were injured as a result.

GUIDANCE FROM OSHA AND THE CDC

As a foundation, businesses must follow existing Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards during the pandemic, such as the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which states that all workers must be provided workplace that is safe and free of hazards. In addition, OSHA has released guidelines for businesses to reduce the risk of infection in the workplace posed by COVID-19.

OSHA is also closely coordinating with CDC, NIOSH and other agencies on proper safety precautions. The CDC has issued Guidance on Disinfecting the Workplace (specifically after a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19). For instance, routine cleaning of commonly used areas is crucial to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. However, areas that have not been used in a week or more require only routine cleaning. Employers should check the CDC and OSHA websites often for guidance to make sure their business has the most updated guidance on PPE and other safety measures.

STATE-LEVEL GUIDANCE

According the state’s guidance on Stage 2 of reopening Before reopening, all facilities must:
• Perform a detailed risk assessment and implement a site-specific protection plan
• Train employees on how to limit the spread of COVID-19, including how to screen themselves for symptoms and stay home if they have symptoms
• Implement individual control measures and screenings
• Implement disinfecting protocols
• Implement physical distancing guidelines

California has also issued industry-specific guidance relevant to the businesses of many of our clients:
“Logistics and Warehousing Facilities” –
• COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Logistics and Warehousing Facilities
• COVID-19 General Checklist for Logistics and Warehousing Employers
“Manufacturing” –
• COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Manufacturing
• Cal/OSHA COVID-19 General Checklist for Manufacturing Employers
“Office Workspaces” –
• COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Office Workspaces
• Cal/OSHA COVID-19 General Checklist for Office Workspaces

LOCAL STAY-AT-HOME ORDERS

The Safer at Home order covering businesses in Los Angeles County, which remains in effect for an indeterminate time, requires that all “Essential Businesses” (and, by extrapolation, other businesses that are allowed to open in some capacity):
(1) Provide employees with, and all employees are required to wear, a cloth face covering when performing their duties requires that they be around others;
(2) Practice social distancing by requiring patrons, visitors, and employees to be separated by six feet, to the extent feasible;
(3) Provide access to hand washing facilities with soap and water and/or hand sanitizer; and
(4) Post a sign in a conspicuous place at the public entry to the venue instructing members of the public not to enter if they are experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness, including fever or cough.

CONDUCT AN INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT

• Walk through the workplace and observe it in its usual state during different phases of business activity.
• Rate all risks found as high, medium, and low risk, and address the risks accordingly.
• Regularly evaluate the office workspace for compliance with the plan and document and correct deficiencies identified.
• Investigate any COVID-19 illness and determine if any work-related factors could have contributed to risk of infection. Update the plan as needed to prevent further cases.

ADAPT YOUR IDER PLAN TO SAFELY REOPEN

Business will change after reopening, and business have to adapt accordingly. While a business cannot be expected to ensure prevention of infection with COVID-19 in its workplace, it is strongly advisable to institute and follow reasonable safety measures as part of an Infectious Disease Emergency Response Plan (IDERP). Once the business has developed a plan to protect its workers, it must then be effectively communicated to employees. The employer should post a notice of these policies in a conspicuous location in the workplace.

Part of this plan entails assessing current protocols to accommodate social distancing policies, such as:
• Require those employees that can work from home to do so; Helpful to categorize jobs classified as low, medium, high, and very high exposure risk.
• Provide hand sanitizer and schedule frequent cleaning to sanitize common areas in the workplace (such as door knobs, keyboards, the break room, etc.).
• Discourage workers from using other workers’ phones, desks, offices, or other work tools and equipment, as much as possible.
• Limit non-essential visitors and establish screening policies for essential visitors

COMMUNICATE THE PLAN TO EMPLOYEES AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO CUSTOMERS

• Train managers and supervisors to recognize COVID-19 symptoms, the precautions that will be implemented to prevent infection, and how to response to emerging employee/customer infection.
• Inform and encourage employees to self-monitor for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 if they suspect possible exposure.
• Instruct managers, supervisors and employees on use of PPE, cleaning schedules and sanitizing techniques, and what to do if exposure is suspected.
• Have a summary of the plan posted or available to customers on request.
• Address when employees are fearful to come into work because of the risk of contracting COVID-19 by discussing the IDER Plan that has been implemented.

VERIFY ALL NEW AND RETURNING PERSONNEL’S HEALTH AND ABILITY TO WORK

• Utilize a basic Health Questionnaire each day an employee reports to work.
• Consider implementing pre and post work shift temperature checks. Employees should not be permitted to work with temperatures over 100.4°F. The EEOC has confirmed that measuring employees’ body temperatures and/or testing for COVID-19 does not run afoul of the employee privacy protections provided in the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), but the results must be kept confidential. (Note that body temperature is not completely reliable, as some carriers of the virus do not exhibit fever symptoms.) The EEOC has not addressed antibody testing to date.
• Be certain to avoid discriminatory practices in the Health Questionnaire and health screening of employees.

WHAT IF AN EMPLOYEE TESTS POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER REOPENING?

The business’ IDERP should include protocols for how the business will respond if an employee test positive for COVID-19.
• Develop policies and procedures from prompt identification and isolation of sick workers (The CDC Guidance on Disinfecting the Workplace specifically addressed safety measures after a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19).
• Until at least July 6, 2020, California presumes a COVID-19 infection was acquired at work if it was diagnosed, or a positive test occurs, within 14 days after any worksite appearance. While the presumption can be rebutted in theory, in effect this means that active employees will almost always receive workers compensation benefits and treatment for COVID-19 infections. Be sure to follow normal workers compensation procedures as you would for any other workplace injury or illness.
• EEOC guidelines allow employers to ask if employees are experiencing recognized symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat). Employers must maintain that information in confidence as a medical record – information about an employee’s symptoms may be protected by ADA or HIPPA.
• Once the employer has good faith reason to believe an employee has a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19, the employee should be required to stay out of the workplace for a 14-day period or until cleared by a doctor’s note or alternative, such as a negative COVID-19 test report. This policy must be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion, not applied only against selected individuals.
• The employer must advise other employees who may have contact with the affected person, without identifying the affected employee, to protect that employee’s privacy. The employer must take steps to prevent harassment or discrimination against those suspected of having COVID-19.

DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLANS IN THE EVENT OF AN OUTBREAK

Businesses would be wise to develop contingency plans to prepare for scenarios which may arise as a result of outbreaks, such as:
• Increased rates of worker absenteeism.
• The need for social distancing, staggering work shifts, downsizing operations, delivering services remotely, and other exposure-reducing measures.
• Options for conducting essential operations with a reduced workforce, including cross-training workers across different jobs in order to continue operations or deliver surge services.
• Options for interrupted supply chains or delayed deliveries.
Employers who implement these safety measures and diligently adhere to them will not only improve their workplace and avoid disruptions, they will reduce their exposure to liability in the event that an employee, customer or vendor contracts COVID-19.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys will continue to monitor and advise clients about the legal implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how businesses can navigate these uncertain times.

24
MAY
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Coronavirus and COVID-19 Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can Employers Ask, “So, What Did You Make?”

Posted by:

Can Employers Ask, “So, What Did You Make?”

A new law in California is squarely aimed at reducing historical wage disparity, particularly between male and female employees.  On January 1, 2018, a new law will take effect in California to prohibit employers from seeking “salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.”  The new law, Section 432.3 of the Labor Code, also requires employers to provide the pay scale of the position to the applicant upon reasonable request.

But even under this new law, employers can still access salary history information under certain circumstances.  Employers may review salary history information that is publicly available under federal or state law, including information that is obtainable under the California Public Records Act or the federal Freedom of Information Act.  Employers may also consider and rely on salary history information in determining the salary for that applicant, if the “applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses salary history information to a prospective employer….”  But, even when employers can rely on voluntarily disclosed salary information to set a particular salary, job applicants are still protected by California’s Equal Pay Act.  Any prior salary information about the applicant still cannot be used as the sole justification for “any disparity in compensation” for employees of different sexes, races, or ethnicities for “substantially similar work.”

It seems likely there will be a challenge to the constitutionality of the new restriction, most likely on free speech grounds.  Other states and municipalities have passed similar laws restricting employers from inquiring about salary history.  Philadelphia has a similar ordinance passed earlier this year to prohibit employers from asking an applicant about prior salaries and from relying on salary information unless that information was voluntarily disclosed by the applicant.  The Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia filed a lawsuit, challenging the ordinance on several grounds, including “chilling” the protected speech of employers under the First Amendment, and violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the severe penalties employers risk incurring.  While this case is still pending, the Chamber of Commerce raises questions of constitutionality that could apply as well to California’s new law.

Employment laws change constantly at federal, state and local levels.  In preparation for the new year, employers should review the documents they use in the hiring process, including job applications and new hire documents, and remove questions pertaining to salary history.  Employers should also instruct any employees who may be interviewing applicants not to ask about an applicant’s salary history.  And, for each open position, employers should ensure pay scales are readily available to disclose in response to an applicant’s request.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are experienced at helping employers navigate the shifting maze of laws and regulations they face, and resolving employment issues as they arise.

20
DEC
0

Employment Law

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fire Your Employee for His Noxious Memo? Not So Fast.

Posted by:

Fire Your Employee for His Noxious Memo? Not So Fast.

Is an employer free to fire an employee who circulates to co-employees a memo expressing ideas that are noxious to the employer’s efforts to avoid prohibited discrimination?  Perhaps surprisingly, the answer can be, “No.”

A good example is the recent event in which Google fired James Damore, an engineer, for circulating a memo, or “manifesto,” explaining a basis for gender bias among computer engineers.  His memo, entitled, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber – How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion,” purported to be a personal response to what he viewed as the shaming and silence of those in his field who have differing views about gender in the workplace, and whose views are inconsistent with Google’s “dominant ideology.”  In the memo, Damore provided what he called “biological” explanations for why there is a gender gap in technology, such as: women are more neurotic and thus tend to pick less stressful jobs; women are more “directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas;” and men have a higher drive for status.  Damore posted this screed to Google’s internal messaging board.  It was a message to his co-workers, and hostile to his employer’s position.

As Damore acknowledged, engineering at Google requires collaboration and teamwork.  Damore’s statement put Google’s management in a difficult place – how can Damore continue to work on any team that involves women? Further, Google’s employee review process emphasizes peer reviews, particularly by high-level engineers such as Damore.  Damore’s expressed biases could cause questions as to the fairness of his reviews, and his position as a supervisor could be argued to create a hostile work environment for the female minority with whom he works.  It is not surprising, then, that Google employees reacted by demanding Damore be disciplined or terminated.  Google agreed, and Damore was terminated.

But Damore seems to have anticipated that reaction, and took steps to protect his own interests.  As quoted by the New York Times, Damore included in his memo an unusually lawyerly statement:  “I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does.”  After the termination, Damore submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints,” and reminding Google that it is “illegal to retaliate” against an NLRB charge.

Was Google’s action defensible?  The National Labor Relations Act Sections 7 & 8(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. Section 157 & 158(a)(1)) makes unlawful violating employees’ rights to engage in “protected concerted activities.” “Concerted activities” are broadly defined to include “the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection….” Most often, “concerted activities” are associated with union activity, but the NLRB protects activity that is not specifically union oriented.  This can include communicating with coworkers regarding wages and working conditions, and expressing preferences for political candidates who support favorable labor issues such as higher wages for hourly workers.  In doing so, employees are permitted to use company bulletin boards, both electronic and physical, and company email, on non-working time.

The effect of this protection is that, if Damore challenges his termination, he will likely argue that Google’s decision to terminate him curtailed his rights to discuss his political beliefs and to engage like-minded employees about his view that the hiring and promotions practices at Google are unfair to men.

Because Damore works in California, there are additional considerations under state law.  California Labor Code §1101 provides that “No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office; or (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”  While this may not control an adverse employment decision by an employer against a single individual, once coworkers learn that an employee was fired based on his speech or political activities, those coworkers may perceive that action as a threat or policy.  As the Supreme Court has recognized, employees’ economic dependence on the employer can reasonably lead them to pick up even subtle signals when their jobs are at stake.  NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617 (1969).  Here, Damore’s like-minded coworkers could interpret his firing as a threat to their employment should they express views similar to his.

The unfortunate upshot for Google is that Damore’s termination seems like a retaliation claim ripe for filing.  Though many may personally disagree with Damore’s views on gender in the workplace, and he may have absolutely no factual or evidentiary basis for his position, he could argue in an action against Google that he was attempting to organize a group of like-minded workers to oppose what he believes are Google’s gender biases or an unfair reverse discrimination policy. His “manifesto” appears to structured for this very argument.

It is ironic that the policies of the NLRB and California Labor Code, which protect political organization and prohibit retaliation, are what may ultimately force Google to suffer legal liability for Damore’s termination for expressing disagreement with Google’s anti-discrimination policies.

As these events demonstrate, the application of employment law and policies in real world situations can be challenging.  Protection of one worthwhile policy can seemingly conflict with others, and well-meaning employers can find themselves having to make very difficult choices.  Employers should consult counsel experienced in the sometimes complex issues that can arise in many different employment circumstances.

28
AUG
0

Discrimination, Employment Law

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hot Yoga and Cold Law: Employment Retaliation Claims Can Arise Anywhere

Posted by:

Hot Yoga and Cold Law: Employment Retaliation Claims Can Arise Anywhere

Most people would agree that working in a government office that supervises lawyers is quite different than working in a 104 degree “hot yoga” studio. But recent matters involving these two very different work environments show that employment retaliation claims can be asserted against any employer – whether you’re a yoga master or the master of all lawyers in California.

The California State Bar has the staid mission of regulating the admission of attorneys and investigating assertions of attorney misconduct. Yet in November 2015, the State Bar found itself charged with wrongful employment retaliation after it fired one of its top managers, John Noonen. Noonen asserted that the termination was retaliatory because, just a few weeks earlier, he submitted a 40-page internal complaint against the State Bar’s top attorney for allegedly failing to properly investigate complaints against the president of the State Bar. The State Bar has denied Noonen’s retaliation allegations and has said that Noonen’s position was eliminated as part of a cost-saving effort.

Less than two months later, the same types of claims led to a sizeable jury verdict against a completely different business run by famed yoga guru Bikram Choudhury. Choudhury made his fortune teaching yoga instructors his techniques and allowing graduates to operate yoga studios that feature a specific yoga sequence performed in a 104-degree room. In January 2016, a Los Angeles jury found that Choudhury sexually harassed his former legal advisor and wrongfully fired her for investigating others’ claims of sexual discrimination and assault against him. Choudhury asserted he had good cause to fire his legal advisor because she was not licensed to practice law in California. The jury first ordered Choudhury and his yoga business to pay $924,000 in compensatory damages, and the next day the jury upped the ante with a further award of $6.4 million in punitive damages.

In each of these recent cases, employees alleged that their bosses improperly “retaliated” against them for investigating workplace misconduct. Most employers and employees know that laws exist to protect employees from wrongful discrimination and harassment. The same laws also provide that employers cannot punish or “retaliate” against employees for making complaints about other potentially wrongful employment conduct, such as discrimination or harassment, or for participating in workplace investigations about such potential wrongful employment conduct.

“Retaliation” is prohibited by the same federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability and gender. “Retaliation” can take many forms, including termination, demotion, suspension or other employment discipline against the employee for engaging in protected activity, such as reporting perceived employer discrimination or other misconduct. Owing to its broad scope, retaliation is a claim commonly raised by disgruntled or terminated employees. In fact, according to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), retaliation is the most common basis of discrimination claims in EEOC cases.

These cases illustrate some of the many circumstances in which employment issues can lead to litigation against a wide variety of employers. Conkle, Kremer & Engel regularly advises employer and individuals on workplace issues and the ramifications of retaliation and harassment claims so that all involved can take steps to resolve conflicts in a meaningful, efficient way. When circumstances do not do not allow a non-litigated solution, CK&E attorneys litigate and arbitrate employment disputes including retaliation claims, whether the claims are asserted individually or as a class action.

5
FEB
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Class Actions, Contracts, Business and Finance, Discrimination, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

California’s new Paid Sick Leave Law goes into effect July 1, 2015: Are you ready?

Posted by:

California’s new Paid Sick Leave Law goes into effect July 1, 2015: Are you ready?

Starting July 1, 2015, virtually all California employers – regardless of size – will be required to provide employees with paid sick leave.

The new “Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014” (AB 1522), California Labor Code Section 245 et seq., requires that all employees – full-time, part-time, temporary and seasonal – who have worked for 30 or more days within a year from the beginning of employment, must be given paid sick leave.

Employees who are providers of in-home support services, and employees of air carriers are excluded from the new law. Also excluded are employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly provide for wages, paid sick leave, or hours.

The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act may have been passed with good intentions, but the Act’s complex and seemingly contradictory accrual, carryover and use requirements and broad scope of permitted use has left many employers feeling ill as they prepare for compliance before the July 1, 2015 effective date.

The paid sick leave accrues at the rate of one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Thus, a full-time employee working 2,080 hours per year can accrue up to 69.3 hours, or 8.67 days, of paid sick leave. However, under the new law, employers can limit an employee’s use of paid sick days to 3 days or 24 hours in each year of employment. And, while the law requires accrued paid sick days to carry over to the following year of employment, an employer has no obligation to allow an employee’s total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 6 days or 48 hours.

Fortunately, there appears to be a simple solution for employers wishing to avoid the accrual and carryover requirements. An employer can provide employees with 3 paid sick days (24 paid sick hours assuming eight-hour work days) at the beginning of each calendar year, anniversary date of employment or twelve-month basis.

The new paid sick leave law allows employees to use paid sick days for broad purposes, beyond that employee’s medical care. An employee can take paid sick days for the diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition or preventive care of the employee or a family member. In addition, an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking can use paid sick days for specified purposes, including to obtain a restraining order or to obtain services from a domestic violence program.

An employee can take paid sick days either upon oral or written request. The law provides that if the need for paid sick leave is foreseeable, the employee shall provide reasonable advance notification. If the need for paid sick leave is unforeseeable, the employee shall provide notice of the need for the leave as soon as practicable.

California employers will need to take specific action before July 1, 2015 to ensure that they will be fully compliant with the Act on July 1, 2015.

Employers must provide written notice of the new law to all employees. The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement provides electronic copies of the mandatory workplace postings for employer use on its website.

Employers are also required to provide employees with written notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave available, for use on either the employees’ itemized wage statement or in a separate writing provided on the designated pay date with the employees’ payment of wages.

Finally, the Act requires employers to keep for at least three years records documenting the hours worked and paid sick days accrued and used by an employee, and allow the Labor Commissioner to access these records.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys provide employers with practical guidance and legal expertise to ensure compliance with ever-changing labor laws, including wage and hour issues and successful development and implementation of a sick leave policy that complies with the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.

26
JUN
0

Employment Law

, , , , , , , , ,