U.S. Supreme Court Partially Punts in Electronic Monitoring Case

We posted about Quon v. Arch Wireless here when it was just a Ninth Circuit case. There, the court of appeals held that a deputy sheriff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages sent on an employer-provided PDA.

On review, the U.S. Supreme Court ducked on the reasonable expectation of privacy issue that the courts below focussed on. The Supreme Court is concerned that the use of electronic data in the workplace and in society is still in flux and it does not want to pass judgment too soon on how privacy is maintained and expected in electronic communications. So we won't know about what policies are valid, whether a supervisor's oral statement could modify a written policy, and whether employers can destroy an expectation of privacy merely by furnishing the equipment. Another day, perhaps.

Instead, the court did hold that the City of Ontario was within its rights to look at Quon's text messages to see if he was using too much bandwidth for personal use. The court assumed there was a sufficient expectation of privacy without deciding the issue, and simply held that the search was "reasonable."

Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable under the approach of the O’Connor plurality. 480 U. S., at 726. For these same reasons—that the employer had a legitimate reason for the search, and that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of that justification—the Court also concludes that the search would be “regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context” and would satisfy the approach of JUSTICE SCALIA’s concurrence. Id., at 732. The search was reasonable, and the Court of Appeals erred by holding to the contrary. Petitioners did not violate Quon’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Bottom line - this case would have more relevance to private sector employers in California if the Court had addressed the "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue. However, the court's discussion also concludes that employee monitoring is "regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context."

For public sector employers, this case is significant because it clarifies the standard for the government-as-employer performing workplace monitoring even where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The case is City of Ontario v. Quon and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court: NLRB Must Have 3 Members to Rule

So, what are we going to do about the over-500 - count 'em - NLRB decisions issued by the 2-member panels??

The NLRB normally has 5 members. At the end of 2007, the Board had 4 members, and anticipated the terms of 2 recess appointments would expire shortly. So, the 4 members "delegated" its powers to a three-member panel.

Then, one of the panel members left because his term expired. That left just two - a quorum of the panel of three...right?

Well no. Several litigants challenged the Board's power to function as a two member panel. The Courts of Appeals split on the issue. The Supreme Court ruled today that the two-member decisions were improper:

we find that the Board quorum requirement and the three-member delegation clause should not be read as easily surmounted technical obstacles of little to no import. Our reading of the statute gives effect to those pro-visions without rendering any other provision of the statute superfluous: The delegation clause still operates to allow the Board to act in panels of three, and the group quorum provision still operates to allow any panel to issue a decision by only two members if one member is disqualified. Our construction is also consistent with the Board’s longstanding practice with respect to delegee groups. We thus hold that the delegation clause requires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.

So, what happens to the 500+ decisions issued by the 2-member panel? We'll see how many of the litigants attempt to challenge them. Or, perhaps the Board, which has been staffed by 4 members since March 2010, will find some way to re-affirm the decisions. We shall see.

The case is New Process Steel LP v. NLRB and the opinion is here.

DGV

US DOL Issues New Adminstrator Interpretation

The U.S. Department of Labor is not waiting around for employers and employees to request informal opinion letters. The administrator is busy reviewing its previous letters and issuing new Administrator Interpretations. These are not the same as official regulations, but they give you an idea of how the department will enforce its laws.

The department issued its second such letter yesterday. This one addresses "donning and doffing" - basically whether changing at the beginning and end of the shift constitutes "preliminary" or "postliminary" activity (non-compensable under federal law) or compensable work time.

The issue arises under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as modified by the Portal-to-Portal Act:

Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that time spent “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday” is excluded from compensable time under the FLSA if the time is excluded from compensable time pursuant to “the express terms or by custom or practice” under a collective bargaining agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 203(o).

In 1997, the DOL issued an opinion letter saying that meat packing employees' putting on "protective" clothing or gear, such as smocks, arm guards, belly guards, gloves, etc. was compensable time because these items were not considered "clothes." In 2002 and 2007, the DOL retreated from this position and held that donning/doffing "protective clothing" could be considered "clothes," excluded from work time.

In its Administrative Interpretation, No. 2010-2, the DOL returns to its 1997 interpretation. After reviewing the legislative history and court decisions, the DOL says:

the § 203(o) exemption does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job. This interpretation reaffirms the interpretations set out in the 1997, 1998 and 2001 opinion letters and is consistent with the “plain meaning” analysis of the Ninth Circuit in Alvarez. Those portions of the 2002 opinion letter that address the phrase “changing clothes” and the 2007 opinion letter in its entirety, which are inconsistent with this interpretation, should no longer be relied upon.

The DOL then went a step further. The DOL opined that changing clothes, even if not compensable, may constitute a "principal activity" where changing is integral to the job. When changing is considered a "principal activity," it starts the work day. The activities that follow are part of the work day and compensable, even if they would not be compensable by themselves. So, if changing clothes is a "principal activity," then walking from the locker to the work area is also compensable under the "continuous workday" doctrine:

it is the Administrator’s interpretation that clothes changing covered by § 203(o) may be a principal activity. Where that is the case, subsequent activities, including walking and waiting, are compensable. The Administrator issues this interpretation to assist employees and employers in all industries to better understand the scope of the § 203(o) exemption.

This interpretation is highly significant in industries where employees change clothes at the beginning and end of the shift, even when they do not necessarily wear "protective clothing" or equipment. That is because time that otherwise would not be compensable may become so if the clothes changing is considered a "principal activity."

The Obama administration's DOL, run by former California legislature member Hilda Solis, is awake. Employers should not ignore the federal agency, even in California.
The new interpretation is posted here.

U.S. Supreme Court to Review California Arbitration

So, I asked in this post whether the California Supreme Court's jurisprudence on class action waivers in arbitration would survive the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Stoltt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds. There, the SCOTUS held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorized arbitrators to require class action arbitration when an arbitration agreement is silent.
The California Supreme Court, on the other hand, say that arbitration agreements cannot preclude class-wide arbitration.

Looks like we're going to find out. The U.S. Supremes just granted review of a 9th Circuit decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. There, the Ninth Circuit held that a class action waiver was "unconscionable" under California law and that the FAA does not preempt California's unconscionability jurisprudence. Ross Runkel's arbitration blog posts the details here. This case will be argued next term, which begins in October 2010.

U.S. Supreme Court on Attorney's Fees in ERISA cases

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a court may award attorneys fees in ERISA benefits denial cases to any party without proving it is a "prevailing" party:

a fees claimant must show "some degree of success on the merits" before a court may award attorney’s fees under §1132(g)(1), id., at 694. A claimant does not satisfy that requirement by achieving "trivial success on the merits" or a "purely procedural victor[y]," but does satisfy it if the court can fairly call the outcome of the litigation some success on the merits without conducting a "lengthy inquir[y] into the question whether a particular party’s success was ‘substantial’ or occurred on a ‘central issue.’"

The ERISA attorney's fees statute awards fees to "any" party in the district court's discretion. Courts had read into that statute the requirement that a litigant be deemed the "prevailing" party. Under case law, a "prevailing" party has to demonstrate certain characteristics, like monetary gain, etc. The Supreme Court held that as a matter of statutory construction, courts could not simply add a prevailing party requirement.

So, in ERISA benefits denial cases, it will be easier for litigants to claim attorney's fees, even if they simply win a remand by the district court to the insurance plan administrator, rather than total victory.

Justice Stevens concurred in most of the opinion and in the judgment. The decision otherwise was unanimous.

The case is Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court on Timeliness of Disparate Impact Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that disparate impact claims were timely even though the plaintiffs did not challenge the original implementation of the alleged discriminatory practice. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. So there, Scalia haters.

The City of Chicago conducted an examination for firefighters in 1995. It announced it would begin selecting from among the highest scorers, called "well-qualified." The middle tier was called "qualified." Applicants who scored in this range would be kept on an eligibility list. No one brought suit attacking the examination at the time it was given.

Over time, the city exhausted the "well-qualified" list. On March 31, 1997, some African-American applicants filed a charge with the EEOC. They claimed the use of the "well qualified" score had a disparate impact on black applicants - i.e., it resulted in exclusion of a disproportionate number of black applicants. After receiving right to sue letters, they brought a class action on behalf of 6,000 "qualified" applicants.

The Court framed this issue like this:

We consider whether a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging
the adoption of a practice—here, an employer’s decision to exclude employment
applicants who did not achieve a certain score on an examination—may assert
a disparate-impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later
application of that practice.

The city argued the charges were untimely and that the scoring was justified by business necessity. The city lost at trial. The district court rejected the business necessity of the test as a justification for the admittedly "severe" disparate impact.

Regarding timeliness, the plaintiffs were timely regarding the city's more recent selections of well-qualified applicants, but were untimely regarding the city's initial classification of qualified and well qualified persons.

The Supreme Court decided that the city's use, rather than adoption, of the practice was the discriminatory act. Therefore, the decision that the City's selection of well-qualified applicants within the limitations period was sufficient to establish a disparate impact claim.

The issue in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U. S. 618 (2007), in contrast, was whether a plaintiff could allege disparate treatment - intentional discrimination - based on time-barred past decisions. The court distinguished Ledbetter because the disparate impact claim is based on the use of neutral, but discriminatory, criteria, without the need to prove intent. So, Ledbetter is not in conflict with this decision.

The case is Lewis v. City of Chicago and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court Defines "Employer" in Wage Hour Cases

In 2005, the California Supreme Court held in Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, that individual agents / managers cannot be held liable as "employers" under California wage-hour law. In Martinez v. Combs, opinion here, the court similarly held that investors / business partners could not be held liable as "employers" either.

To get there, the Court engaged in a rigorous, painstaking (euphemisms for tedious) analysis of the history of California wage-hour laws, all the way back to the Magna Carta, or so it seemed.

But the Court did something that had not been done before. It came up with a framework for deciding just what entity can be held liable for unpaid wages.

This case arises because Munoz, the employer that hired, supervised, and (previously) paid its farm workers, went bankrupt. So, the case has relevance during these troubled times. Munoz operated a strawberry harvesting operation. Because of lower strawberry prices and financial reverses, Munoz could not pay its workers and then declared bankruptcy.

Unable to recover from Munoz, the employees sued: "two of the produce merchants through whom Munoz sold strawberries: Apio, Inc. (Apio), and Combs Distribution Co., together with its principals, Corky and Larry Combs, and its field representative Juan Ruiz (collectively Combs). Plaintiffs’ separate action against a third merchant, Frozsun, Inc. (Frozsun), has been stayed pending the outcome of this action."

The Labor Code does not specify who is liable for unpaid wages under Lab. Code Section 1194:

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving
less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

The Court first decided that liability under Section 1194 is limited to an "employer" under the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. The Wage Orders do define "employer." As the Court related:

Employ’ means to engage, suffer, or permit to work,” and “ ‘[e]mployer’ means any person as defined in Section 18 of the Labor Code, who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”

So, who is an employer? The Court said that under the IWC's definition, one can become an employer in one of three ways:

To employ, then, under the IWC’s definition, has three alternative definitions. It means: (a) to exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.

Suffer or permit - The Court clarified that to "suffer or permit" someone to work results in a finding of employer only when the person permitting the work has the power to stop it. The vendors / defendants could not stop or prevent the work. Munoz had all the power to hire or fire his own workers.

Regarding the "control over the wages hours and working conditions," the Court rejected the claim that the vendors' financial relationships with Munoz resulted in de facto control over the plaintiffs' working conditions.

Finally, "to engage" means that the employer hires the employees to work, which is the straightforward way of establishing an employment relationship. There was no such evidence in this case.

So, this test will be used to define who is liable under California law as an "employer," with the exception of the employer's agents / employees. The employer's own agents and employees are not liable under Reynolds v. Bement, cited above. If the IWC changes the definition of "employer," then this case may be superseded. But the Legislator has all but abolished the IWC. So, the Legislature will have to define the employment relationship or reconstitute the IWC to change the effect of this case.

The opinion in Martinez v. Combs is here.

FAA Does Not Permit Claswide Arbitration Unless Parties Agree

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court may have made employment arbitration agreements really popular, until Congress decides to ban them.

The court held in a non-employment case, STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. ET AL. v. ANIMALFEEDS INTERNATIONAL CORP., that parties cannot force the arbitration of class actions unless the arbitration agreement permits it.

What if the agreement is silent about class arbitration? The court said silence does not mean consent.

In California, though, it is illegal to prohibit class action arbitration. So, what if the agreement is silent? Does that now mean you're prohibiting class arbitration because of the silence? If you argue that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, a silent agreement essentially prohibits class arbitration, where does that leave the arbitration agreement under California law?

Will the Federal Arbitration Act trump the California Supreme Court's decision in Gentry v. Superior Court (opinion here; post here), in which the California high court held that classwide arbitration waivers are illegal / unconscionable?

I know, so many questions. My opinion is: I think so. But I have never really understood how California arbitration agreement law has escaped the FAA anyway.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision is here. Stay tuned!

DGV

Ninth Circuit Issues Walmart Class Certification Opinion

Dukes v. Walmart is the massive class action filed on behalf of some 1.5 million current and former female employees. Back in 2007, we posted about this case here and here.

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit just issued a "rather lengthy" opinion (read: super-long). It's a scholarly exposition of class action certification law. It makes a law review article read like a comic book.

The court's intention is to clarify the standards for class certification in the Ninth Circuit for cases brought or removed to federal district court. Federal court class action practitioners are going to want to read this opinion again and again. They're going to have to, because the majority's opinion is a bit, well, windy.

I will spare you the details because you can read as much of the opinion as you can stand. To sum up, the court is permitting the certification of a class of hundreds of thousands of current workers claiming sex discrimination. The court, however, remanded the case to the district court regarding whether to allow a separate class of former employees, and whether punitive damages makes the case inappropriate for certification.

The case is Dukes v. Walmart and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court Continues to Love Arbitration! (Not)

In its latest installment of "let's silently kill mandatory arbitration," the California Supreme Court (by Justice Moreno, writing for a 4-3 majority), decided that courts may vacate arbitration awards in FEHA or other statute-based claims merely when the arbitrator makes a legal error that results in a ruling in favor of the employer without a "hearing on the merits."

Will arbitrators ever grant motions for summary judgment now that a court will review the decision for "legal error"? They'll get right on that. Here's the money quote:

We therefore hold that when, as here, an employee subject to a mandatory employment arbitration agreement is unable to obtain a hearing on the merits of his FEHA claims, or claims based on other unwaivable statutory rights, because of an arbitration award based on legal error, the trial court does not err in vacating the award. Stated in other terms, construing the [California Arbitration Act] in light of the Legislature’s intent that employees be able to enforce their right to be free of unlawful discrimination under FEHA, an arbitrator whose legal error has barred an employee subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement from obtaining a hearing on the merits of a claim based on such right has exceeded his or her powers within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4), and the arbitrator’s award may properly be vacated. (See Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 106-107.)

To emphasize: this holding does not authorize court review for an arbitrator's mere legal errors when a "hearing on the merits" has occurred. In this case, the arbitrator decided the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. That, of course, is not a "merits" argument.

The case is Pearson Dental Supplies v. Superior Court (Turcios) and the opinion is here.

US DOL Clarifies Unpaid Internships

The US Department of Labor issued new guidance regarding unpaid internships (here). The DLSE just got done with their opinion letter (posted here), and here come the feds with a fact sheet of their own. Coincidence? I think NOT! Scuse me, I need to dry clean my tinfoil hat.

California Fair Employment and Housing Commission to Issue Pregnancy Discrimination Regulations

So, the California FEHC, which enforces the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is fixing to revise its pregnancy disability leave regulations. The webpage devoted to these efforts, including a link to the first draft of the regulations is here. If history is a guide, there will be a number of hearings and revisions before final regulations are promulgated. We will have a detailed article on these proposed regulations in the coming weeks. However, one highlight I noticed right away is that the new regulations will explain in more detail how pregnancy disability dovetails with other disabilities regarding "reasonable accommodation obligations" (over and above the separate pregnancy disability leave requirement).

CA Division of Labor Standards Issues Opinion Letter re Internships

Summer's here and the time is right for hiring free labor - er educational interns, that is! The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement issued an opinion letter, here, explaining when an internship / training period may be unpaid. The opinion letter arose in the context of a non-profit's training program. But the agency goes into detail regarding the factors it considers relevant, etc.

El Torito Managers Denied Class Certification

The courts are not requiring class certification in class actions attacking the executive exemption. The main point continues to be that the trial court's decision is entitled to lots of deference. If the trial court's factual findings are supported by "substantial evidence" is does not matter that there is conflicting evidence. The appellate court then looks to whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard. The bottom line is that the trial court has a lot of power in class certification matters.

In this case, involving restaurant managers, the trial court properly found evidence that a class of managers, even broken into sub-classes, was not amenable to common class treatment. Therefore, the court of appeal upheld the trial court's denial of certification. The court sets forth a long discussion regarding what the trial court found to be important on the certification issue....

The plaintiff arguments that classifying everyone as exempt proves commonality, and that chain restaurant managers don't have enough discretion to create individual issues precluding class certification, continue to be losers.

So lawyers defending restaurants in wage and hour matters, take note.

Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. et al. and the opinion is here.

Nevada Minimum Wage Going Up 7/1/2010

Our neighbor to the east will raise its minimum wage on July 1. In Nevada, there are different minimum wage levels for employees who receive qualifying health benefits and those who do not.

The Nevada minimum wage will increase to the federal level of $7.25 per hour for employees who receive qualifying health benefits. The rate goes up to $8.26 per hour for those workers who do not receive health benefits. The increase is covered in this article. It is not yet posted on the Nevada Labor Commissioner's website, but likely will show up here. Qualifying health benefits are defined here.

Megan's Law and SLAPPs

The court of appeal's decision in Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services is interesting and perhaps dangerous for employers. The plaintiff, Mendoza, applied for an unspecified job with an unnamed employer. The employer conducted a background check through ADP Selection Services. ADP, as part of its services, checked the Megan's Law website, where information about registered sex offenders is kept. Although he does not definitively say so, the implication is that he was denied employment because of his appearance on the Megan's Law website.
Mendoza sued ADP, alleging that its use of the website was unlawful - because it was supplying the information to the employer. He claimed the disclosure violated Megan's Law itself, as well as the California investigative consumer report law.
ADP filed a motion to strike the complaint, claiming Mendoza's lawsuit was a "SLAPP" - strategic lawsuit against public participation. ADP claimed it has the right to republish the Megan's Law information, doing so is a protected activity, and Mendoza was seeking to interfere with that right by filing suit.
And both the trial court and court of appeal agreed. So, ADP won this case on the motion and on appeal, and obtained a huge award of attorney's fees, as the anti-SLAPP statute provides.
But do not be fooled. Mendoza did not sue the prospective employer for denying him employment. Had he done so, the court of appeal acknowledged, he might have had a good case.
So, why would an employer agree to receive the information from a third party, when it faces liability for using that information?
Of note, the court did say that an employer MAY use the information on the Megan's Law website "to protect a person at risk" even if for employment purposes. So, employers with operations exposing employees to minors, for example, possibly can use the Megan's Law website's information. The question remains whether the employer's use fits within the definition of "protecting a person at risk."
The bottom line is that unless the employer is using the information from the Megan's Law website to "protect a person at risk," which is not defined, it remains illegal for the employer to "use" that information to deny employment, whether it comes from the website itself or a third party. Therefore, notwithstanding this decision, employers should carefully consider whether to permit third party background investigators to disclose information found on the Megan's Law website.
The case is Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit Changes Its Mind a Little

We posted about Rutti v. Lojack Corp. here, and wrote an article about compensation for preliminary/postliminary work here. Rutti was a case in which the plaintiff and a class of workers for Lojack claimed they were not paid for off-the-clock work performed at home, as well as for their commutes to and from work. The initial panel opinion shut down most of Rutti's claims, holding Rutti's activities were either de minimus or not compensable under the FLSA and California law. The panel did find that Rutti's uploading data at the end of the day potentially was compensable, however.

The first panel voted 2-1 that Rutti's use of a company vehicle to commute to and from home was not compensable under California law. But, on rehearing, the panel changed its position. Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall flipped her vote. So, the new opinion gave Rutti a trial on his claim that driving to and from work is compensable under California law. The issue is the amount of control Lojack exercised over the use of the company truck. Money quote from Judge Silverman's separate majority opinion (which looks a lot like his previous dissent):

Rutti was required to drive the company vehicle, could not stop off for personal
errands, could not take passengers, was required to drive the vehicle directly from home to his job and back, and could not use his cell phone while driving except that he had to keep his phone on to answer calls from the company dispatcher. In addition, Lojack’s computerized scheduling system dictated Rutti’s first assignment of the day and the order in which he was to complete the day’s jobs. There is simply no denying that Rutti was under Lojack’s control while driving the Lojack vehicle en route to the first Lojack job of the day and on his way home at the end of the day.

So, employers who provide employees with company vehicles, take note. Too many restrictions on use of a company vehicle could turn commuting time into compensable time. And that means overtime, and maybe more meal periods, etc.

The case is still Rutti v. Lojack Corp. The new, fractured opinion, is here.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Tip Pooling Under FLSA

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not prohibit employers from allocating tips under a tip pool, if the employer does not apply a "tip credit" to satisfy the minimum wage obligation.
The Fair Labor Standards Act permits payment of a sub-minimum wage to tipped workers, so long as the base subminimum wage plus tips exceeds the normal minimum wage.
The plaintiffs claimed that the employer's allocation of pooled tips violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. They raised a number of arguments regarding the validity of the tip pooling arrangement, under which 55-70% of tips were distributed to kitchen and dishwashing staff. But the court said the FLSA does not prohibit tip allocations where the employee earns full minimum wage before tips. When an employer does pay subminimum wage and relies on tips to fill the gap, however, there are restrictions on tip pooling under FLSA (29 U.S.C. s. 203(m)). But those did not apply in this instance.
California law, however, does not permit the subminimum wage. Neither does Oregon law, which is where this case arose. Therefore, employers complying with state law minimum wages will not have to worry about the FLSA when constructing tip pools.

The case is Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc. and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court Breathes Life Into Removal Statute

Employers usually prefer federal court over California state court. Federal court practice includes a unanimous jury, tough rules that drive plaintiff attorneys nuts, judges that seem to grant summary judgment more readily, and other perceived benefits.

Federal courts don't routinely hear state law claims unless they are tied to a federal claim, or unless the plaintiff and defendant are "diverse" citizens. But federal courts often prefer not to litigate relatively simple state-law based claims. So, they have limited jurisdiction to hear those matters based on "diversity" of the parties' citizenship.

The Supreme Court stepped in to clarify how to determine a corporation's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. The case arose in California. Melinda Friend and other sued Hertz for wage and hour violations. Hertz sought to remove the case on the ground that Friend was a California Citizen, and Hertz was a citizen of New Jersey. The lower federal courts determined that Hertz was the equivalent of a California citizen, because it had substantial activities in California.

On review, the Supreme Court rejected the analysis. The Court concluded:

“principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its head-quarters—provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion).

So, that's a much more straightforward analysis, which will result in the limitation of corporations' citizenship to its state of incorporation and the state where the officers/ senior management primarily do business. As a result, employers with lots of operations in different states will be able to remove cases to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

The case is Friend v. Hertz Corporation and the opinion is here.

No Attorney's Fees for Minimal Recovery in FEHA Case

The California Supreme Court held that trial courts may deny attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs in discrimination cases brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, if the plaintiff recovers less than the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum for superior court. The plaintiff recovered about $11,000 and tried to recover over $800,000 in attorney's fees. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033 authorizes trial courts to deny recovery of costs and fees when the jurisdictional minimum is unmet. The Supreme Court held that Section 1033 applies in FEHA cases. The court also held that the trial court properly considered that the plaintiff grossly inflated his request for attorney's fees. The case is Chavez v. Los Angeles and the opinion is here.

No Short Limitations Periods for Wage Claims

The Court of Appeal held an employer could not include in an employment agreement applicable to wage and hour claims. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law against the defendant's administrative exemption. The case involved recruiting managers. The opinion is Pellegrino v. Robert Half International and the opinion is here.

DFEH to Issue Procedural Regulations

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing has proposed a series of procedural regulations regarding, among other things, how charges are processed. The proposal codifies the DFEH's case-handling procedures, which have not been included in the agency's regulations up to now. The draft proposal is here. There will be hearings and a comment period before they are revised and ultimately promulgated.

Kin Care Case

The California Supreme Court decided that unlimited sick leave is not subject to California's "kin care" law. We blogged about this case (the court of appeal's opinion), McCarther v. Pacific Telesis, here.

To remind you - the company had an unlimited paid sick leave policy. You could take up to five days of paid sick time off. Once five days were up, you had to work a half day, and then you could start taking another five days of paid sick time off again. Yes, there is a union contract.

Labor Code section 233 requires employers to permit employees to use up to 1/2 of sick leave to care for a covered relation. So, the plaintiff in this case argued that she was entitled to use 1/2 of unlimited...

The Supreme Court, disagreeing with the court of appeal, decided that this unlimited sick pay policy was not "sick leave" under Labor Code section 233. Therefore, there was no kin care obligation - and no obligation to permit employees to use up to 1/2 the annual sick pay benefit.

The Supreme Court therefore ducked whether the company could apply its attendance control policy to the use of sick leave to care for a relative, when the employer applied the policy to time off for one's own sickness. The court of appeal had said that the employer was within its rights to apply the same conditions to kin care as to sick leave for one's own illness.

Not a lot of employers have unlimited sick leave. So, this case won't have a LOT of applicability. But for employers interested in the court's ruling, it is here.

DGV

Court of Appeal Upholds Arbitration Agreement

I know, I've been remiss in my blogging. Blame it on Jennifer Shaw's new baby. She can't read yet.

So, the Court of Appeal in Dotson v. Amgen (opinion here) held that Amgen's arbitration agreement was lawful. Specifically, a limitation of one deposition per side unless the arbitrator ordered more based on need was lawful. The Court also noted that a provision reserving all interpretation issues to the arbitrator save unconscionability was ok. The Court also held that a provision permitting appellate review in a separate court action to set aside an award was lawful.

The model arbitation agreements can be amended again.

Pregnancy Disability Update. Sort of.

As some of you know, Jennifer Shaw is my partner, chief rainmaker, and employment lawyer extraordinaire, over here at Shaw Valenza. As a partner, she is not entitled to Pregnancy Disability Leave under California law. You can read about that in this article I recently wrote for the SF Daily Journal, here.

Of course, this is just my sneaky way of announcing the arrival of Baby Shaw, female, on January 21. "What's New in Employment Law?" you ask? "Jennifer's baby," I reply. See what I did there? Huh?

Please send her well wishes and presents if you're so moved. Her favorite color is pink. The baby's favorite color also is pink. (Even if it isn't, the baby doesn't read the blog.) So, go with pink.

DGV

More Employment Law from the Defense Appropriations Act

Yep, the recent extension of the discount on COBRA premiums is part of our national defense effort. The 2010 Defense Department Appropriations Act contained an extension of the COBRA premium discount (enacted in Feb. 2009 as part of the ARRA stimulus bill) through February 28, 2010. A US DOL announcement regarding the extension is here.

Arbitration of Employment Law Claims - Going Away?

Did you know that the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill is actually an employment law bill?

Well, when Congress keeps passing laws over with 100's of pages of text, you're going to see some hidden gems in there. So, the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act, which was H.R. 3326, appears to make the first cut of the 1000 that eventually will end arbitration of individual employment claims.

The new law applies only to defense contractors that receive more than $1,000,000 under the Defense Dept. Appropriations Act. The new law prohibits arbitration of certain claims for covered defense contractors But the contractor can't arbitrate covered claims with any of its employees, whether or not they are paid by contract money.

Here's the text of the section of the law:

Sec. 8116. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be expended for any Federal contract for an amount in excess of $1,000,000 that is awarded more than 60 days after the effective date of this Act, unless the contractor agrees not to:

(1) enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; or

(2) take any action to enforce any provision of an existing agreement with an employee or independent contractor that mandates that the employee or
independent contractor resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

The secretary of defense may grant a waiver of this provision when needed for national security.

So, defense contractors, check your arbitration agreements. Everyone else, don't start your own arbitration administration company. I think demand for arbitration services may go down if this Congress acts quickly to abolish pre-dispute arbitration. The window of opportunity could be narrower after November, though.

The text of this portion of the bill is here, in Title VIII. By the way, if you care about such things, this portion of the law is known as the Franken amendment.

DGV

California WARN's Faltering Business Exception Explained

Happy new year everyone!

The director of California's Department of Industrial Relations issued an opinion letter clarifying one of the provisions of California's baby WARN Act. In essence, the law requires employers to provide 60 days' notice of a shutdown, relocation, or mass layoff under certain circumstances. However, there are some situations in which notice is not required. One is when the employer is actively seeking capital or business when the notice was required to be given (at least 60 days before the triggering shutdown):

1402.5. (a) An employer is not required to comply with the notice requirement contained in subdivision (a) of Section 1401 if the department determines that all of the following conditions exist:
(1) As of the time that notice would have been required, the employer was actively seeking capital or business.
(2) The capital or business sought, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the relocation or termination.
(3) The employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required by subdivision (a) of Section 1401 would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business. . . . .
(d) This section does not apply to notice of a mass layoff as defined by subdivision (d) of Section 1400.

Note that the defense does not apply to layoff notices, only to shutdown notices. So, if a company is looking for a buyer, is that the same as seeking capital or business? No, said the Director. The opinion letter surveys the analogous federal case law and concludes that the employer should have given the notice even though it was trying to obtain a buyer before it went out of business.
The opinion letter is here.

U.S. Supremes to Review Quon v. Arch Wireless

We posted about Quon v. Arch Wireless here. This was the 9th Circuit's opinion holding a county liable for auditing deputy sheriffs' text messages. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review of that case today (article here.) The court will have a decision out by June. We of course will keep track of it for you. But this could be a way for the court to issue a key privacy ruling about electronic communications. We shall see...

DGV

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Railway Labor Act Arbitration

If you have no interest in the Railway Labor Act or its arbitration procedures, skip this post.

The Supreme Court unanimously decided that under the Railway Labor Act, there is no jurisdictional requirement that the parties hold certain pre-arbitration proceedings, called "conferences." The arbitration panel erred when it held it had no power to decide 5 grievances because there was insufficient evidence of such conferences. However, the Court refused to consider the issue under the Constitution as a denial of due process. (I warned you to skip this post.)

The case is Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the opinion is here.

9th Circuit: No Jury, Compensatory or Punitive Damages for ADA Retaliation

Alvarado sued his former employer, Cajun Operating Co., for retaliation because he complained to an internal hotline about discrimination based on disability, national origin, etc. Before trial, the court granted a motion in limine barring Alvarado's punitive damages, compensatory damage, and jury trial demand. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal.

The analysis is interesting if you like statutory construction cases. I know what you're thinking: Zzz. If you just want the punchline - the Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh in holding that the Americans With Disabilities Act does not provide for compensatory or punitive damages in retaliation cases asserted under the ADA. As with pre-Civil Rights Act of 1991 cases, the only relief available is equitable, which removes the jury trial too. My bold prediction is that Congress will fix this issue in a few weeks or months.

The case is Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co. and the decision is here.

California Supreme Court Takes on Harassment v. Discrimination

Roby sued McKesson for disability-based harassment and discrimination. The jury awarded over $3million in actual and $15million in punitive damages, including an award of damages for harassment against an individual defendant. The verdict, though, was a mess and was reduced because of overlapping, duplicative damages awards. In addition, there was an issue of whether the individual could be sued for harassment because much of the alleged conduct was in connection with personnel decisions.

One of the issues the Supreme Court addressed is whether a manager / supervisor's conduct during "personnel actions" is evidence not only of the discriminatory motive, but also harassment. The court explained the difference as follows: "discrimination refers to bias in the exercise of official actions on behalf of the employer, and harassment refers to bias that is expressed or communicated through interpersonal relations in the workplace. " * * *
"[H]arassment is generally concerned with the message conveyed to an employee, and therefore with the social environment of the workplace, whereas discrimination is concerned with explicit changes in the terms or conditions of employment"

Applying this standard, the court upheld Roby's harassment claim:

Roby's discrimination claim sought compensation for official employment actions that were motivated by improper bias. These discriminatory actions included not only the termination itself but also official employment actions that preceded the termination, such as the progressive disciplinary warnings and the decision to assign Roby to answer the office telephones during office parties. Roby's harassment claim, by contrast, sought compensation for hostile social interactions in the workplace that affected the workplace environment because of the offensive message they conveyed to Roby. These harassing actions included Schoener's demeaning comments to Roby about her body odor n10 and arm sores, Schoener's refusal to respond [*40] to Roby's greetings, Schoener's demeaning facial expressions and gestures toward Roby, and Schoener's disparate treatment of Roby in handing out small gifts. None of these events can fairly be characterized as an official employment action. None involved Schoener's exercising the authority that McKesson had delegated to her so as to cause McKesson, in its corporate capacity, to take some action with respect to Roby. Rather, these were events that were unrelated to Schoener's managerial role,
engaged in for her own purposes.

Does this clear things up? There was a bright line between personnel actions and harassing conduct before this case, supported by 15 years of authority. Does this mean that personnel actions now are evidence of harassment when the manager carrying them out is unpleasant? We will see how lower courts treat evidence of harassment after this decision.

Separately - the Court also analyzed punitive damages in employment law cases. After detailed analysis, the Court decided that a one-to-one ratio between actual and punitive damages was the constitutional limit. The Court based its conclusion on its conclusion that as a corporation, McKesson's conduct was not particularly "reprehensible." The Court also based its decision on the high damages award, warranting a lower ratio because of the actual damages' deterrence of similar conduct.

The Court also explained what a "managing agent" is for punitive damages purposes, clarifying prior rulings:

In this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the jury could reasonably have found supervisor Schoener to be a "managing agent" of employer McKesson. On that basis, the court concluded that the jury's award of punitive damages could be justified based on Schoener's actions alone, regardless of whether more senior managers at McKesson were informed of Schoener's actions. We disagree.

At the time of Roby's termination, McKesson had over 20,000 employees; Schoener
worked at a local distribution center supervising four of them. When we spoke in White about persons having "discretionary authority over . . . corporate policy"
(White, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 577), we were referring to formal policies that affect a substantial portion of the company and that are the type likely to come to the attention of corporate leadership. It is this sort of broad authority that justifies punishing an entire company for an otherwise isolated act of oppression, {Slip Opn. Page 32} fraud, or malice. The record here does not support the conclusion that Schoener exercised that sort of broad authority or that she was a "managing agent" for purposes of awarding punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b). Therefore, in assessing the reprehensibility of employer McKesson's conduct, we must look to what McKesson's more senior managers knew and did.

The case is Roby v. McKesson Corp. and the opinion is here.

IRS Standard Mileage Rate for 2010 is $0.50

The IRS dropped the standard mileage reimbursement rate to $0.50 from $0.505. So, beginning on Jan. 1, 2010, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:

50 cents per mile for business miles driven
16.5 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes
14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations

Those of you who don't believe me and who want an IRS cookie (yum) deposited on their computers may see the announcement here.

DGV

CA Supreme Court Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege

Costco hired a law firm to advise the company regarding the classification of certain managers as exempt. The lawyer interviewed two of the managers to analyze their duties and responsibilities. She then produced a 22-page report. The report was considered confidential and privileged from the start.

Later, Costco was the subject of a wage and hour class action regarding the alleged mis-classification of the managers. The plaintiffs sought disclosure of the opinion letter. Costco objected, asserting attorney-client privilege.

Lower courts held that portions of the letter, containing factual information rather than attorneys' advice or opinions, should be disclosed. The California Supreme Court accepted the case for review and reversed.

The court flatly rejected any attempt to "parse" the letter:

We hold the attorney-client privilege attaches to Hensley’s opinion letter in its entirety, irrespective of the letter’s content. Further, Evidence Code section 915 prohibits disclosure of the information claimed to be privileged as a confidential communication between attorney and client “in order to rule on the claim of privilege.” (Id., subd. (a).) Finally, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s holding, a party seeking extraordinary relief from a discovery order that wrongfully invades the attorney-client relationship need not also establish that its case will be harmed by disclosure of the evidence.

Without deciding whether the communications between the managers and lawyer during the wage and hour audit were privileged, the court held that the lawyer's discussion with Costco concerning the managers' interviews were still privileged:

In sum, if, as plaintiffs contend, the factual material referred to or summarized in Hensley’s opinion letter is itself unprivileged it may be discoverable by some other means, but plaintiffs may not obtain it by compelling disclosure of the letter.

This obviously is an important decision for employers seeking advice from lawyers without fear of having that advice disclosed in later discovery.

The case is Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

Another Non-Solicit Bites the Dust

The Court of Appeal took up a complex lawsuit involving claims and cross-claims of unfair competition, including strong agreements not to compete or solicit and choices of law and forum clauses. The Court expanded on the decision this summer in The Retirement Group v. Galante, posted here.

Basically, Dowell, other employees and their new employer, St. Jude, sued Biosense Webster, which was attempting to enforce a non-compete agreement, which included broad non-solicitation clauses. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the agreements were unenforceable. Here is some language from the opinion:

Biosense contends that the clauses are valid because they were tailored to protect trade secrets or confidential information, and as such satisfy the so-called trade secret exception, citing cases such as Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1429–1430; Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1462; Metro Traffic, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 860; and American Paper & Packaging Products, Inc. v. Kirgan (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1318, 1322. Plaintiffs counter that in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision of Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th 937, a common law trade secret exception no longer exists.The Court in Edwards concluded that section 16600 “prohibits employee noncompetition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception.” (Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 942.) . . . .

* * *

Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition. ...

Biosense argues that the clauses in the agreements are narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential information because they are “tethered” to the use of confidential information, and are triggered only when the former employee’s services for a competitor implicate the use of confidential information. As such, to the extent that no confidential information was disclosed or made known to Dowell and Chapman during their employment with Biosense, the noncompete clause would never be triggered. But this argument ignores the broad wording of the agreements. The noncompete clause prohibits an employee from rendering services, directly or indirectly, to a competitor where those services could enhance the use or marketability of a conflicting product through the use of confidential information to which the employee had access at Biosense. “Confidential information” is broadly
defined as information disclosed to or known by the employee, including such
information as the number or location of sales representatives, the names of customers, customer preferences, needs, requirements, purchasing histories or
other customer-specific information. Given such an inclusive and broad list of confidential information, it seems nearly impossible that employees like Dowell and Chapman, who worked directly with customers, would not have possession of such information. The prohibition here is not unlike the noncompete clause found facially invalid by the court in D’Sa, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 930. . . . .

We also reject the argument of Biosense that the nonsolicitation clause is narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential information. The same argument was rejected by the Galante court, which noted: “However, Edwards rejected the claim that antisolicitation clauses could be exempt from section 16600 if the conduct covered by such clauses fell within the ‘narrow-restraint’ exception discussed in Campbell (Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 948–950), and we decline TRG’s implicit invitation to engraft that exception onto this case.” (Galante, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241.) Moreover, the clause at issue here goes well beyond prohibiting active solicitation by prohibiting departing employees from selling or rendering any services to Biosense customers or directly or indirectly assisting others to do so—even if it is the customer who solicits the former employee. (See
Morris v. Harris (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [invalidating restraint that
prohibited employee from providing services to former customers who sought him
out without any solicitation].)

St. Jude, though, lost on its attempt to enjoin Biosense from enforcing its non-compete agreement against all employees in California. The court said that St. Jude had no standing under the UCL to enforce an injunction in favor of plaintiffs not before the court.

Biosense cross-claimed against St. Jude for "raiding" by hiring Dowell and other employees. The Court of Appeal again affirmed summary judgment against Biosense, holding there was no evidence of unlawful conduct by St. Jude, which by default has the right to hire away St. Jude employees.

Biosense argued St. Jude used similar agreements to prevent competition by its own former employees. Therefore, Biosense reasoned, St. Jude came into court with "unclean hands." No sale. St. Jude's alleged unfair practices with respect to their own employees did not go to the heart of the matter with respect to Dowell's suit against Biosense. Therefore, unclean hands did not apply.

So, lots to read. Bottom line, though, is that a non-solicit probably is not going to be enforced except as a remedy for trade secret violations, not as a prophylactic measure where there is no finding of actual or threatened misappropriation under the UTSA. The agreement here was too broad, but there does not seem to be much room left for clauses that prohibit solicitation merely because an employee is exposed to "confidential" information and might use them some day.

The case is Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Once Again Explains 132a Liability

The Court of Appeal clarified what Labor Code Section 132a means - again. It appears the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has not adapted to the California Supreme Court's decision in Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281 (Lauher).

So, Fowler had significant spine surgery. Initially he could not be cleared to return to work as an order puller / machine operator. The doctor's restrictions permitted him to use equipment for just an hour a day. Then, the doctor changed his mind and returned Fowler to work with no restrictions. Because of the seeming conflict, Fowler and his employer submitted his case to an "AME" doctor, who decided Fowler could return to work.

Fowler filed a workers' compensation discrimination claim under Labor Code Section 132a because of the delay in returning him to work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board held that Gelson's, the employer, discriminated against Fowler by refusing to accept his doctor's note returning him to work. The Board appeared to apply old law, basically saying that any negative action against an industrially injured worker is a violation of section 132a regardless of whether the employer would take the same action against a non-injured worker.

The Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB decision because Fowler did not prove discrimination - differential treatment:

Here Fowler made no showing that Gelson’s treated him differently from nonindustrially injured employees. That is, Fowler made no showing that Gelson’s would have returned to work a nonindustrially injured employee whose physician provided the same releases, but discriminated against Fowler by not returning him to work. Fowler made no showing that Gelson’s treated him disadvantageously because of the industrial nature of his injury, as compared to how Gelson’s treated a nonindustrially injured employee. Thus he did not make a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a and did not shift the burden to Gelson’s to establish an affirmative defense.

The case is Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. WCAB and the opinion is here.

Anybody See a Top 100 Employment Law Blog?

Who us? I mean, of COURSE it's us. Well, thanks for the honor, Delaware Employment Law Blog. We like you too.

California Supreme Court Upholds Bonus Plan's Forfeiture

Can a bonus plan provide for forfeiture of unpaid bonus if an employee voluntarily leaves employment or is fired for cause? Yes, said the California Supreme Court. Money quote:

“nothing in the public policy of this state concerning wages . . . transforms [a] contingent expectation of receiving bonuses into an entitlement.” (Neisendorf, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 522.) Only when an employee satisfies the condition(s) precedent to receiving incentive compensation, which often includes remaining employed for a particular period of time, can that employee be said to have earned the incentive compensation (thereby necessitating payment upon resignation or termination). (Ibid.; Lucian v. All States Trucking Co., supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 975 [“An employee who voluntarily leaves his employment before the bonus calculation date is not entitled to receive it”].)

Here, of course, Schachter voluntarily terminated his employment before his restricted stock fully vested. By the terms of the Plan, and Schachter’s own concession, he is not entitled to those unvested shares of restricted stock. Having elected to receive some of his compensation in the form of restricted stock, a transaction he was aware carried risk as well as the potential for reward, Schachter cannot now assert that he should have been paid in cash that portion of his compensation he elected to receive as restricted stock.[1] As the company persuasively argues, Schachter’s “bargained-for ‘wages’ have been paid in full. He received all of his promised cash compensation, received immediately exercisable voting and dividend rights in the restricted stock, and was awarded contingent rights of full ownership in that stock. The only thing that has not been ‘paid’ is something Schachter never ‘earned’ — fully vested [company] stock. Schachter therefore has no claim under [section] 201 or [section] 202.” [1]

So, the Supreme Court has blessed bonus plans that require the employee to remain employed. However, the Court did note that Citigroup's plan would have paid certain compensation to Schachter if he has been fired without "cause," e.g., laid off. The Court approved this formulation, noting that employees terminated "without cause" may not be be deprived of the benefits of their contract. This was all "dicta" so it should not have much force. But the DLSE will rely on it to bolster its own enforcement position.

The case is Schachter v. Citigroup and the opinion is here.

Mixed Motives in FEHA Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs. (blogged here) limited "mixed motive" cases under federal law. The Court said there is no need for that defense in age discrimination cases under the federal ADEA. Employees must prove "but-for" causation, so the employer need not prove it would have made the same decision with or without additional discriminatory motivation. The defense remains viable in discrimination cases brought under Title VII.

Anyway, in California, the mixed motive is alive and well. The Court of Appeal in Harris v. Santa Monica, opinion here, held that the trial court prejudiced the city of Santa Monica by refusing to instruct the jury that even if discrimination played a role in Harris' termination, the City was entitled to win if it would have made the same decision regardless.

The opinion is noteworthy for a few reasons:
- it reinforces the relevance of employment at will in discrimination cases.
- it explains clearly that the employer's decision cannot be attached for being "unwise" or "factually incorrect" if it is not motivated by discrimination.
- it revives the old "BAJI" jury instruction on mixed motive cases, given the new CACI instructions do not contain model for mixed motive cases.
- "mixed motives" need not be pleaded as an affirmative defense because it is not "new matter."

New Poster!

The EEOC has issued a revised “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster. See the announcement here.
Here's your chance to update the look of your breakroom, time clock wall, and anywhere else that employees are likely to see the poster. Those of you with laminated multi-posters will contribute to our economic recovery by purchasing the new versions.

Click here for the compliance options. You either may print and post the "supplement" or replace your existing posters.

Greg

New California Employment Statutes 2009

The California Bar's Labor and Employment Law Section provided this helpful list of the employment law bills Governor Schwarzenegger signed.... He vetoed the scary ones. The long list below primarily involve public sector employees and their benefits.


SB 519 by Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) - This one affects certain retirement benefits calulations for public employees.

SB 538 by Committee on Public Employment and Retirement - County employees’ retirement: mandatory retirement.

SB 751 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - Teacher credentials - permits California to issue teaching credentials to teachers certified in other countries.

AB 399 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) - Public employee retirement benefits.

SB 11 by Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino) - County employees retirement: San Bernardino County health benefits.

SB 37 by Senator Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks) - State employees: statement of deductions. This law permits state employees to receive electronic wage statements unless they opt out.

SB 634 by Committee on Public Employment and Retirement - State Teachers’ Retirement System.

AB 65 by Assemblymember Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) - Public employee health benefits: vision care: local, school, and university members.

AB 239 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) - Teacher credentialing.

AB 468 by Assemblymember Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) - Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act: employer contributions.

AB 506 by Assemblymember Warren Furutani (D-South Los Angeles County) - State teachers’ retirement: postretirement earnings.

AB 544 by Assemblymember Joe Coto (D-San Jose) - Teaching credential: American Indian languages.

AB 854 by Assemblymember Juan Arambula (I-Fresno) - Employment regulation and supervision: unpaid wages.

AB 1319 by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) - Talent services.

AB 1584 by Assemblymember Dr. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) - Public employees’ retirement: retirement boards.

SB 72 by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - State employees: payroll: health care.

SB 752 by Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) - County employees’ retirement: Orange County.

AB 1025 by Assemblymember Connie Conway (R-Tulare) - Schools: employees and volunteers: Activity Supervisor Clearance Certificate.


AB 381 by Assemblymember Marty Block (D-San Diego) - Unemployment compensation disability benefits: academic employees.

AB 395 by Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar) - Employment: apprenticeship programs.

AB 720 by Assemblymember Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) - Peace officers: marital privilege.

Court of Appeal: "Reasonable Accommodation" Must Be Perfectly Executed Every Time

It is one thing to grant a reasonable accommodation. It is another thing to ensure that it is implemented perfectly, every time. Hard cases make bad law. This is a combination of a sympathetic plaintiff, a big company, and a one-time event resulting in a huge verdict.

A.M. was a cashier at an Albertson's in Marin County. After receiving treatment for cancer, she needed to drink copious water. Albertson's let her have water at her station, even though it was against policy. Naturally, A.M. had to use the bathroom more frequently because of the water she was drinking. Albertson's said that she could call her supervisor and they would cover her.

So, Albertson's had granted A.M. extra breaks as an accommodation, and had implemented a system for A.M. to obtain them. The system was working, with A.M. receiving extra breaks by calling her supervisor. On one occasion, the system did not work because the supervisor was the only person who could relieve her and he was unloading a truck. A.M. had an accident at her cashier station. She went home and did not return to work for Albertson's.

According to the court of appeal, that single failure of the supervisor sufficed to be a "denial" of reasonable accommodation. The court upheld a jury verdict of $200K for that one incident. Add the plaintiff's and defense attorney's fees and sooner or later we're talking about a lot of money.

By the same argument, then, if an employee's wrist starts to hurt a few months after the employer installs ergonomic equipment, that alone is the denial of an accommodation? If a diabetic experiences low blood sugar one day, does that mean the employer's accommodation of permitting food at the work area is actionable?

If an accommodation becomes ineffective, the employer is required to engage in the interactive process to come up with a better accommodation, and grant the new accommodation. It is unreasonable to assume that an employee with a disability has a right to a perfect work environment and a guaranteed flawless accommodation, every day. The world does not work that way for anyone - with or without a disability. The issue is: did Albertson's grant her request for accommodation? Yes. Was it effective? Except for the one occasion, apparently so. Was there evidence the company intended to mistreat A.M. or only pretended to accommodate her? No. Could A.M. have filed a workers' compensation claim if she were injured by a work-related condition? Yeah, which was her real remedy here.

Again, A.M. was very sympathetic and what happened that day was truly unfortunate. But absent proof of intentional discrimination, the result of this case is that FEHA is not providing a remedy for a wrong; it is elevating individuals with disabilities above all others and exposing employers to potential liability for isolated failures.

The case is A.M. v. Albertson's and the opinion is here.

My 0.02.

U.S. DOT: Medical Marijuana Users Cannot Breathe Easier

And they can't breathe sighs of relief, either. I kill me. Anyway, the Department of Justice announced it would pull back on enforcement against medical marijuana users where they are operating within the bounds of state law. (See DOJ memo: here) But the US Department of Transportation wants you to know they're a completely separate agency and there is no free pass on drug testing for medical marijuana users. Here is the DOT announcement.

Ninth Circuit Upholds FLSA OT Plan

Ponoma Valley Hospital pays nurses one rate for 12 hour shifts, and a higher rate for eight hour shifts. The nurses requested the 12-hour shifts. To accommodate them, the hospital calculated how much it would have to pay to neutralize the payroll effect of the 12-hour shift.

An employee claimed that the differing rates were a subterfuge to avoid paying overtime under the federal FLSA.

The Ninth Circuit held that it is lawful to pay different rates for different shifts. And it is OK to lower a base rate to minimize paying overtime, as long as it is above minimum wage.
The opinion does not address California wage and hour law.

The case is Parth v. Pomona Valley Hospital and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Class Certification Denied in Independent Contractor Case

Ali brought a class action on behalf of taxi drivers. The primary claim was that the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. Ali sought class certification, which the trial court denied.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, on the ground that common issues did not predominate. The company submitted over 40 declarations demonstrating that each putative class member experienced different working conditions and degrees of control by the company. Therefore, the case was not amenable to class treatment.

This case demonstrates that a motion for class certification may be defeated where declarations demonstrate numerous differences among each putative plaintiff's treatment. If the plaintiff cannot generalize about all employees by pointing to a few, a trial court may find that a class action is not suitable.

The case is Ali v. USA Cab LTD and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit Limits Federal Anti-Hacking Law

Brekka was an employee of LVRC Holdings, LLC. While employed, he was fully authorized to use the employer's network. He emailed several confidential documents to his personal email account during his employment. The employer discovered this activity after Brekka left LVRC. The employer sued Brekka under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA provides for criminal penalties and a civil action against those who:

intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— . . . (C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2). . . .

or who

knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct
furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4).

The issue was whether Brekka exceeded authorization during his employment by sending out company information to his personal account. The court of appeals, agreeing with the district court said he did not.

The court held that an employee's self-dealing is not "exceeding" authorization under the CFAA. Rather, a violation occurs only when the employee (1) does not have authorization to access the files or (2) accesses them after authorization is terminated.

This decision does not affect any state law violations or torts that the employer might bring. It underscores the need for employers to have in place effective policies and procedures for limiting computer access, particularly after employees depart.

The case is LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Explains Safe Harbor Period for Obtaining Sanctions

Most folks who read this blog don't care about sanctions. Like some of the courts. So, I'll make this quick. The employer settled a wrongful termination lawsuit with the employee. The employee tried to reopen the case four years after the settlement. The motion to reopen the case was frivolous.

The defendant filed a motion for sanctions because the plaintiff's motion was frivolous. To bring a motion for sanctions, you have to wait 21 days to see if the other side will withdraw its frivolous papers (called a "safe harbor"). But the court denied the plaintiff's motion too quickly to give the plaintiff the full 21-day opportunity to see the error of his ways and withdraw it. Therefore, the defendant could not successfully bring the motion for sanctions unless it (1) asked the court to delay the hearing on the frivolous motion. Or (2) the defendant could have gone into court and asked the court to shorten the "safe harbor" period. So, the defendant, victim of legally meritless litigation, has to spend more money and time changing the hearing dates too. Grrreatttt!

In fairness to the court of appeal that reversed the award of sanctions, the statute says what it says. But the statute is not a big deterrent to those who file legally frivolous papers. The Legislature probably will now go about amending it. Stop giggling.

The case is Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit: Subjective Criteria Cannot Be Used at Prima Facie Stage

Nicholson was a pilot for Cape Air. The airline rated her as unqualified to fly certain aircraft because of "CRM" skills, which included her communication and cooperation skills with her crew. She was the only female pilot in the Pacific area of operations. She had a personal relationship with one of the other pilots.

Once disqualified from flying a certain type of plane, she did not bid on other types of aircraft and was fired for job abandonment. She sued for sex discrimination under Title VII.

The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The court disagreed with the district court's determination that Nicholson was unqualified - an element of the prima facie case:

This court has long held that subjective criteria should not be considered in determining whether a plaintiff is “qualified” for purposes of establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. Instead, “[t]he qualifications that are most appropriately considered at step one [of McDonnell Douglas] are those to which objective criteria can be applied . . . .” Lynn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 656 F.2d 1337, 1345 n.8 (9th Cir. 1981).

The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. Sometimes the court requires specific evidence when there is only circumstantial evidence (rather than direct evidence of discrimination such as sex-based comments). But here, the court picked from its patchwork of jurisprudence on what amount of evidence is required to show pretext, and settled on its most employee-friendly standard:

To avoid summary judgment at this step, however, the plaintiff must only demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext.
The amount of evidence required to do so is minimal. “We have held that very little evidence is necessary to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding an employer’s motive; any indication of discriminatory motive may suffice to raise a question that can only be resolved by a fact-finder. When the evidence, direct or circumstantial, consists of more than the McDonnell Douglas presumption, a factual question will almost always exist with respect to any claim of a nondiscriminatory reason.” McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004)

The court found sufficient evidence of pretext. Under the above formulation of the law, how could it not? In fact, the court said that the evidence supporting the prima face case alone in this case would have been sufficient.

I'm pointing this out because it's time for the Ninth Circuit to articulate a clear standard regarding summary judgment in discrimination cases. Here's what the court said in another case in 2006:

To establish that a defendant's nondiscriminatory explanation is a pretext for discrimination, plaintiffs may rely on circumstantial evidence, which we previously have said must be "specific" and "substantial" to create a genuine issue of material fact. n7 Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Such [circumstantial] evidence of 'pretense' must be 'specific' and 'substantial' in order to create a triable issue with respect to whether the employer intended to discriminate on the basis of sex.").

Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1029 (9th Cir. Or. 2006).

The court in Cornwell then went on to note that Godwin may have been undermined by later decisions:

Although there may be some tension in our post-Costa cases on this point -- several of our cases decided after Costa repeat the Godwin requirement that a plaintiff's circumstantial evidence of pretext must be "specific" and "substantial" n9 -- this panel may not overturn Ninth Circuit precedents in the absence of "intervening higher authority" that is "clearly irreconcilable" with a prior circuit holding, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), because that power is generally reserved to our en banc panels. See Miller, 335 F.3d at 899; United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 1132, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989). Whether or not the precedential weight of Godwin has been diminished to any degree by the Supreme Court's decision in Costa, or by our decision in McGinest, we conclude that Cornwell's evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the motives for his demotion under either the Godwin standard which would require "specific" and "substantial" circumstantial evidence of pretext, or the McGinest standard, which would not.

Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir. Or. 2006).

The Cornwell court seems to be politely suggesting that there is a patchwork of decisions and they cannot really be reconciled without an en banc intervention, followed by Supreme Court clarification of its prior holdings. Just sayin'.

The case is Nicholson v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. and the opinion is here.

DLSE Opinion Letter re Reducing Salary and Workdays

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement agreed that temporarily reducing an exempt salaried employee's workweek to 4 days did not violate the salary basis test. The employer was free to proportionally reduce the employee's salary. This is consistent with a long line of federal authorities.

In a prior letter, 2002.03.12, the DLSE said that exempt employees would not be subject to salary reductions for a furlough. It appears DLSE has reversed that position. The new DLSE opinion is here.

Unfortunately, DLSE did not address another, separate, furlough question re exempt employees: can the employer "force" payout of vacation / PTO for furloughs / shutdowns of less than a full workweek? It's not a controversial proposition that the exempt employee is not entitled to any salary if the furlough is a full workweek. Therefore, there should not be any problem in paying out PTO/vacation for full workweek absences.

But what about partial week, ad hoc furloughs? Normally, the exempt employee is entitled to a full salary for any workweek in which s/he performs any work. There are exceptions, but involuntary absences of a day or more for lack of work are not one of them.

The new letter does not fully address this issue. I understand a prospective announcement reducing exempt employees' responsibilities to work with a concomitant reduction in salary. But if the employer says "we're going to shut down three days before Christmas," is that covered by this letter? If so, then it would be OK to pay required PTO for the three day furlough because the salary was reduced prospectively. If the opinion letter does not apply to this scenario, then it probably remains improper to force payout of PTO because the employee was already entitled to full salary. If you're confused, join the club.

This is a California-only issue, because the FLSA does not consider vacation / PTO to be vested. Also, there is an FLSA provision for public sector furloughs for economic reasons, so the question does not apply to the public sector.

Any wage-hour gurus who want to debate, send me an email / comment / wine.

Ninth Circuit: Commute in Employer's Vehicle Not Compensable Time

Lojack, the car security company, required employees to use a company vehicle between home and the first work assignment of the day. Analyzing the FLSA and California law, the court held such time is not compensable. The employee did not have sufficient work responsibilities over and above using the company car. This part of the opinion was decided 2-1 with one dissenter.

The district court had rejected the employee's claim that time spent washing his uniform, the car, and other incidental work was not compensable "preliminary" activity under either federal or California law. The employees did not appeal that conclusion.

But the court of appeals held that mapping out his route, prioritizing his jobs for the day, and receiving instructions on the day's jobs were non-compensable either because they are part of the commute, or because they did not take up sufficient time and, therefore, were "de minimis." This decision was 2-1 with one dissenter.

The test for "de minimis" work that is not compensable includes three factors:

(1) the practical administrative difficulty of recording the additional time; (2) the aggregate amount of compensable time; and (3) the regularity of the additional work.

The court of appeals found, however, that employees may have to be compensated for a "postliminary" activity: uploading his data in his handheld computer to the company's system. The court found that doing so was integral to his job, required attention if the upload was unsuccessful, and was performed every day. The court said that the record was unclear as to whether the work was "de minimis," but concluded that it was not based on the facts before it. This decision was 2-1, with one judge dissenting.

The court also declined to adopt the "continuation of the workday" principle that other courts have adopted. Under that standard, even commute time is compensable if the employee performs substantial work at home and then heads out to work somewhere else.

So, the postliminary activity survived summary judgment. Everything else was rejected.

The opinion is Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc. and the opinion is here.