The Third Circuit is expected to soon make a decision as to whether student-athletes can be considered university “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). But its interpretation of the law might reverberate beyond the confines of college sports and could implicate whether unpaid student interns must also be treated as employees.
As we previously reported here last fall, California enacted a pay transparency law (SB 1162) requiring employers with 15 or more employees to disclose pay scales in job postings beginning January 1, 2023. The Labor Commissioner recently issued guidance in the form of FAQs to address some of the unanswered questions regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the California Equal Pay Act.
Continue Reading California Labor Commissioner Issues FAQs Clarifying Pay Transparency Law
Los Angeles City retail employers may soon be subject to significant new employee scheduling requirements. On November 22, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed the Fair Work Week Ordinance (the “Ordinance”). The new Ordinance, set to become effective on April 1, 2023, will require retail employers in the City of Los Angeles to provide employees at least 14 days’ advance notice of their work schedules and to compensate employees in the event of certain schedule changes. The Ordinance is still pending approval by the Mayor.
Continue Reading The City of Los Angeles’ Fair Work Week Ordinance Requires Predictable Scheduling
Rounding is the practice of capturing time entries on a time clock and converting them to the closest five, ten, or fifteen minute equivalent. For example, both entries at 8:58 and 9:04 may be converted to 9:00 a.m. A recent California Court of Appeal decision, Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., calls into question the continued viability of time-rounding policies in California. In 2012, the Court of Appeal held in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012), that an employer’s time rounding policy is lawful under California law when the policy is “fair and neutral on its face” and is used in a way that will not result, over a period of time, “in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.” As generally applied, the See’s Candy test permitted time clock rounding systems so long as the rounding was to the nearest set increment as opposed to always rounding against the employee. Multiple appellate decisions after See’s Candy cited it favorably in granting summary judgment to the employer.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Limits the Permissibility of Time Rounding
On October 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Cadena v. Customer Connex LLC, concerning whether the time employees spend booting up and shutting down their computers is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Although the case arose out of a call center in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the employees’ principal duties included answering customer phone calls, this case may affect all employers whose employees spend time turning on their computers to work.
On September 27, 2022, California Governor Newsom signed the state’s pay transparency bill, SB 1162, into law, requiring employers with 15 or more employees to disclose pay ranges in job postings, beginning on January 1, 2023. California now joins Colorado, Washington, and New York City with this requirement. SB 1162 also requires certain employers with 100 or more employees to report certain demographic information regarding their employees to the California Civil Rights Division, beginning in May 2023.
In a last minute whirlwind of activity by California’s Legislature, a significant number of employment-related bills have now made their way to Governor Newsom’s desk and await their fate. Below are highlights of some of the bills that may affect California employers, should Governor Newsom sign them into law.
An employee in California has two primary options to pursue a claim for the enforcement of minimum wage and overtime pay rights. The employee may seek judicial relief by filing an ordinary civil action. Alternatively, the employee can initiate an administrative action with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). In Elsie Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille, the California Court of Appeal set forth multiple important holdings expanding the scope and potential liability available to employees pursuing administrative relief for wage claims with the DLSE.
The California Court of Appeal in Meda v. AutoZone, Inc. recently reversed a trial court’s finding that an employer demonstrated it “provided” seats to its employees as a matter of law under California’s suitable seating requirement. This rule stems from subdivision 14(A) of the Wage Orders,[1] which provides that California employers must provide suitable seats to employees “when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” In Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 63 Cal. 4th 1 (2016), the California Supreme Court set forth the fact-intensive framework and multiple factors in analyzing whether the “nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seat,” triggering the employer’s obligation to provide suitable seats. However, no published California authority had considered what steps employers must take to “provide” seats under subdivision 14(A).[2]
On June 13, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Johnson v. WinCo Foods Holdings, Inc, et al. that class members who were not yet employed by WinCo were not entitled to compensation for the time required to take a pre-employment drug test, nor was WinCo required to cover the travel expenses associated with undergoing the test.
On July 13, 2022, San Francisco’s amended Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance (FFWO) goes into effect. All employers who conduct business and have employees working in the City and County of San Francisco or employees who telework, will need to comply with the FFWO. It gives employees the right to request “flexible or predictable work arrangements” to assist with caregiving responsibilities. The amendment creates significant changes to the existing FFWO – it enlarges the scope of an employer’s obligation under the ordinance, while also making it easier for employees to obtain modified schedule arrangements so they can effectively work and perform their caregiving responsibilities with relative ease. Covered employers should take note of these changes to avoid scrutiny from the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) and costlier penalties.