San Francisco Minimum Wage Going UP

1/1/09 - the SF Minimum Wage increases to $9.79. And let's not forget that poster! Here's a free one. The $9.79 minimum applies to all private sector employers. But city government contractors have a higher minimum wage $11.54. And here is your poster, government contractor! Happy new year anyway.

Court of Appeal: Employer Must Disclose Classmember Info Even Over Their Objection?

The general trend has been that the courts do not mind -- at all -- if employees' names and addresses are disclosed to plaintiffs' attorneys in class action cases. The most an employer can hope for is the right to send out an "opt out" form before disclosure, where employees must affirmatively deny their consent to release the information.

Well Crab Addison (operator of Joe's Crab Shack) decided to go one better: send out the "opt-out" form to all employees before it was required to disclose the information in discovery, but without specifically discussing the lawsuit at issue. Here's the form:

RELEASE OF CONTACT INFORMATION
From time to time, Joe’s Crab Shack (the “Company”) may be asked to provide your contact information, including your home address and telephone number, to third parties. The Company may be asked to provide such information in the context of legal proceedings, including class action lawsuits.

We understand that many employees may consider this information to be private and may not want it released. Accordingly, please indicate whether you consent to the disclosure of your contact information by marking the appropriate box.
__ No, I do not consent to the Company’s disclosure of my contact information to third parties.
__ Yes, I consent to the Company’s disclosure of my contact information to third parties.
__ I would like to be asked on a case-by-case basis whether I consent to the disclosure of my contact information to a particular third party, and my contact information should only be provided if I affirmatively consent in writing.

No sale, said the Court of Appeal, affirming the trial court:

to the extent the right to privacy is based on the release forms, there are strong reasons for not giving effect to those forms. Employees indicating that they did not want their contact information disclosed, or wanted disclosure on a case-by-case basis, were unaware at the time they signed the forms of the pending litigation to enforce their statutory wage and overtime rights through a class action lawsuit. We may presume that, had they known about the litigation, their response on the form would have been different. Additionally, the forms apprised them that their contact information could be disclosed if required by law, so they were aware of the limitation on privacy offered by the forms.

So, nice try. With a proper disclosure about any existing litigation, it's possible such a form could be given more deference by a court. But the courts seem unreceptive to efforts to preclude plaintiffs from contacting employees.

The case is Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: How to Calculate Overtime on a Bonus

The First District Court of Appeal held that Costco properly calculated overtime on a production bonus in Marin v. Costco, opinion here.

I am frequently asked how bonuses and commissions affect overtime calculations. Basically, the "half time" (or whole-time in the case of double-time overtime) is due on the bonus, once the bonus is allocated to the hours that were necessary to generate it. You worked 1000 total hours including 20 overtime hours during a bonus period. The bonus is $2000. The incremental hourly rate is $2000/1000 hours = $2.00 per hour. That is the amount of wages on which no overtime previously was paid. So, you owe: 1/2 * $2.00 per hour * 20 overtime hours worked = $20.00.

Get it? The court of appeal did. That's the federal formula, and the formula the DLSE endorses. The court did not mention that California law endorses the use of federal overtime calculation rules. But it does. The plaintiffs wanted the overtime to be calculated by dividing the bonus over the straight time hours and then paying time and one-half on that figure. That would have resulted in double counting. In addition, it would have ignored the simple fact that the employee had to work all hours to earn the bonus - straight plus overtime.

So, if your eyes are crossed, welcome to wage and hour law. The opinion is linked above. It's got a detailed explanation of the rule and the arguments in favor and against.

Enjoy your holiday!

Greg

New FMLA poster

Merry Christmas from the US DOL. Here's your new FMLA poster, necessary for complying
with the new regulations when they become effective next month.

Merry Christmas / Happy Chanukah / Happy Kwanzaa! Happy New Year, too.

Greg

Court of Appeal: No Defense Attorneys' Fees for Frivolous Claims?

The Court of Appeal agreed with the district court that Laura Young's FEHA claim for harassment against her former supervisor was frivolous, vexatious, etc. The trial court, however, awarded only one dollar in attorneys' fees against Young. The court's rationale was that since employer Exxon was going to pay the supervisor's fees, and since Exxon did not complain that the action against Exxon itself was frivolous, the court should not award fees that Exxon would ultimately recover.

Does that make a lot of sense? Yes, but only if you're gutting the attorneys' fees statute. Employers are responsible to pay for employees' defense costs under Labor Code section 2802, unless the employee is found to have engaged in actual unlawful harassment. So, a frivolous claim against an employee by implication is part of the claim against the employer, no? And given most claims against individual managers are barred as a matter of law, and given awards of attorneys' fees are as rare as hen's teeth anyway, one would think that a court would want to give effect to the Legislature's decision to permit an award of attorneys' fees when claims are frivolous. Right?

No. The court of appeal agreed with the trial court and held that where, as in this case, the employer is paying an individual employee's defense costs, the trial court need not award attorneys' fees if the claim against the employer is not frivolous. You don't believe me? Here's the quote:

In short, despite its finding that Young’s case against Lopez was frivolous and vexatious, the trial court had the discretion to deny attorney fees to Lopez. Because the award would benefit only Exxon, a defendant which was not otherwise entitled to an award and which did not show it incurred any significant fees on Lopez’s behalf that it would not have incurred in any event, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision.

By the way, the attorneys' fees statute, Government Code section 12965(b) is very simple and says nothing about differing standards for employers and employees.

In actions brought under this section,the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except where the action is filed by a public agency or a public official, acting in an official capacity.

The statute says nothing about basing awards on who pays the fees. I know it says "discretion," but the courts have held that prevailing plaintiffs are generally entitled to fees as a matter of right, while prevailing defendants have a heavy burden to establish the claims were "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." I think the courts may have lost sight of the plain language of the statute over the years.

While I'm complaining, the Court of Appeal also decided not to publish its analysis of Young's claims on the merits. That means the bar will not benefit from the court's detailed analysis of Young's claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, etc. The decision should be published if only because Young claimed a mental disability and that her outbursts and conduct in violation of policy were attributable to the disability. The Court distinguished Gambini v. Total Renal Care, discussed here, and held that Young's disability did not exempt her from termination for her misconduct.

Anyway, I'm sure Exxon is happy to have won the case. But there was a dark lining in a silver cloud that may affect employment litigation for the rest of us. The opinion in Young v. Exxon is here.

Court of Appeal: Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs Challenging Starbucks' Application

California employers cannot ask applicants to disclose certain convictions for marijuana-related misdemeanors that are more than two years old. Starbucks knew that, and included a disclaimer on the back of its application, viz:

CALIFORNIA APPLICANTS ONLY: Applicant may omit any convictions for the possession of marijuana (except for convictions for the possessions of marijuana on school grounds or possession of concentrated cannabis) that are more than two (2) years old, and any information concerning a referral to, and participation in, any pretrial or post trial diversion program.”

Although that may read like a proper disclaimer, it was included in a larger paragraph of disclaimers located away from the general convictions question, which did not exclude such marijuana convictions. So, the California disclaimer did nothing to stop Erik Lords and his band of merry putative classmembers from filing suit, claiming the application form was defective. Erik and co. wanted about $26 million in penalties. Aggrieved applicants get a penalty of $200 or actual damages for faulty applications.

The court of appeal agreed with the trial court and the plaintiffs that the general disclaimer was improperly placed away from the general convictions question. Had the properly worded disclaimer been placed next to the conviction question, it would have been legally correct, the court said.

But the court of appeal detected a couple of problems with Lords' prayer. [I kill me]. First of all, none of the named plaintiffs had a marijuana conviction. Second, all had read the allegedly hidden language. Third, none was denied employment because of a wrongfully disclosed conviction.

So, the court said:

We see nothing in the statute to support plaintiffs’ claim that the Legislature ntended to protect the privacy interests of job applicants who had no marijuana convictions in their background. As we explain below, we decline to adopt an interpretation that would turn the statute into a veritable financial bonanza for litigants like plaintiffs who had no fear of stigmatizing marijuana convictions.

The case is Lords v. Starbucks and the opinion is here.

No Punitive Damages for Meal and Rest Period Violations

While the wage and hour world waits for the Walmart decision, in which the court awarded roughly $170 million in meal period premiums, penalties and punitive damages. the other courts are working away.

Wait no longer. Ms. Brewer is a waitress at Cottonwood golf resort's restaurant. She sued for meal and break violations among a smorgasbord of other employment claims. She lost on her age discrimination claims. But she won on some Labor Code violations. The jury also awarded her punitive damages, over and above the meal and break premiums, penalties for improper wage statements, etc. (I bet you thought I was going to make food puns throughout this post, didn't you?)

The court of appeal reversed on punitive damages. The court decided that the Labor Code creates new rights not available at common law. Therefore, their remedies are exclusive. The court also held that a claim for unpaid meal periods and other Labor Code violations "arise" out of contract - the employment relationship. As such, punitive damages are not available as a matter of law.

Here's a long quote from the opinion to prove I read it, or at least that I know how to cut and paste:

We agree with Cottonwood’s contention, which Brewer does not dispute on appeal, that the Labor Code statutes regulating pay stubs (§ 226) and minimum wages (§ 1197.1) create new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law. Moreover, those same statutes provide express statutory remedies, including penalties for the violation of those statutes that are punitive in nature, that are available when an employer has violated those provisions. Section 226, subdivision (e), provides that any employee “suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with [the pay stub requirements] is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Similarly, section 1197.1, subdivision (a) provides that any employer who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum wage “shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: [¶] (1) For any initial
violation that is intentionally committed, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid[;]
[¶] (2) For each subsequent violation for the same specific offense, two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid regardless of whether the initial violation is intentionally committed.” Here, Brewer sought and recovered the maximum $4,000 penalty available for Cottonwood’s pay stub violations, and the judgment contained an additional penalty of $15,300 pursuant to section 1197.1 for the overtime violations. We are not persuaded by Brewer’s argument that the remedies set forth in the statutory scheme were not intended to be the exclusive remedy available for statutory violations, and Brewer does not articulate any basis for concluding those penalties are so inadequate that other remedies should be permitted. Similarly, the
regulations requiring employers to provide meal breaks (§ 512) and rest breaks
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11090, subd. 12(A)), and providing numerous forms of
remedies for their violation, also appear to have created new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law, and the statutory scheme provides “a comprehensive and detailed remedial scheme for its enforcement.” (Rojo v. Kliger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 79.) Those remedies include an award in the nature of liquidated damages under section 226.7 (cf. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole
Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1112 [because “damages [from missed
meal and rest breaks] are obscure and difficult to prove, the Legislature may
select an amount of compensation [for the violation] without converting that
remedy into a penalty” for statute of limitations purposes]), injunctive relief
(see generally § 1194.5), and potential statutory penalties (see § 558). We are convinced that, because the meal and rest break provisions of the Labor Code “established a new and comprehensive set of rights and remedies for [employees]… [and] [n]o such specialized rights and remedies existed at common law… the remedy provided in the statute ‘is exclusive of all others unless the statutory remedy is inadequate.’ [Quoting Turnbull, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 827.]” (De Anza Santa Cruz Mobile Estates Homeowners Assn. v. De Anza Santa Cruz Mobile Estates, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 916.)

* * *
We are also convinced that, even were the remedies provided by the statutory scheme not the exclusive remedies for the new rights, punitive damages would nevertheless be unavailable because punitive damages are ordinarily limited to actions “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract” (Civ. Code, § 3294), and Brewer’s claims for unpaid wages and unprovided meal/rest breaks arise from rights based on her employment contract. Brewer argues, without citation to relevant authority, that Cottonwood’s breach of its statutory obligations under the Labor Code is a “breach of an obligation not arising from contract,” thereby supporting the award of punitive damages.

However, in analogous situations, the courts have recognized that, when a statute imposes additional obligations on an underlying contractual relationship, a breach of the statutory obligation is a breach of contract that will not support tort damages beyond those contained in the statute.(See, e.g., Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 187–192 [breach of Consumer Warranty law obligations is breach of contract and does not support tort damages for emotional distress].) We apprehend the Labor Code provisions governing meal and rest breaks, minimum wages, and accurate pay stubs constitute statutory obligations imposed only when the parties have entered into an employment contract and are obligations arising from the employment contract. The breach of an obligation arising out of an
employment contract, even when the obligation is implied in law, permits contractual damages but does not support tort recoveries. (Cf. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 700.) Although Brewer relies on language from Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1147 to assert prompt payment of wages involves sufficiently fundamental public polices that the willful failure to make such payments will support punitive damages, the court in Gould expressly recognized that, although a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy would state a tort claim, a claim seeking tort recoveries based on the allegation the employer otherwise breached the employment contract agreement was barred by Foley. (Gould, at p. 1155.)

The case is Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties and the opinion is here.

IRS Standard Mileage Rate for 2009: $0.55 Per Mile

The IRS announced the standard mileage rates for 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, the reimbursement rate will be $0.55 for business use of a vehicle, $0.24 for moving and medical expenses, and $0.14 for service to charitable organizations. For the second half of 2008, the reimbursement rate actually was higher, at $0.585.

The IRS's announcement is here.

DGV

Definitely summary judgment. Definitely.

FEHA does not protect against bad managers, only decisions and actions with a discriminatory basis. “[I]f nondiscriminatory, [the employer’s] true reasons need not necessarily have been wise or correct. [Citation.] While the objective soundness of an employer’s proffered reasons supports their credibility . . . , the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate illegally.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 358; see also Hersant, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005 [“‘The [employee] cannot simply show that the employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent.’”].)

So said the court of appeal in Mangano v. Verity, Inc. The opinion is here.

Basically, Mangano was a long term employee at Verity. Springsteel, the CFO, was his boss. Springsteel gave Mangano the nickname "rainman" because he had an uncanny memory, and he was a bit quirky. He also called him Tommy, instead of Tom. ::::Wow, that's why they passed anti-discrimination laws. -Ed. :::: Mangano was turned down for a promotion that was given to a clearly qualified outside candidate. When he applied, he complained about the nicknames, and Springsteel never used them again.

Little did Springsteel (or anyone else) know that Mangano later would be diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism. So, he sued for disability discrimination and harassment. The court of appeal upheld summary judgment. I only blogged about the case because of the point made in the quoted language above.

New FMLA Regulations Are Here

The federal DOL finalized its FMLA regulation revisions. We analyzed earlier drafts here and here. We'll publish a full analysis of the final regulations soon.

To find the new regulations, page down to p. 141 of the PDF, here. The first 140 pages are analysis and commentary. No one can read all that and stay awake. You'll put your eye out. Of course, that could earn you up to 12 weeks of leave....

Greg

H/T Ross Runkel

California's Wage Laws Reach Outside State's Borders

Multi-state employers - take note. In today's mobile world, employees travel from place to place, performing duties as the job requires. When an employee lives in Arizona and works all over the place, including California, must the employee be paid under California law?

Well, yes, at least for the work performed in California, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In what appears to be a straightforward application of "choice of law" principles, the court has probably wreaked havoc on payroll systems, human resources departments, and risk managers all over America. So, Oracle employed instructors who taught other companies' employees how to use Oracle software. Some of the employees lived in Arizona or Colorado, but performed some of the work (sometimes in partial weeks), in California.

The Court of Appeals said that when the non-resident employees work in California, California wage and hour law applies. The court did not say when this rule kicks in - what if an employee flies over California, just passes through, visits California for a one-day business trip, etc.? The question mark means: I dunno. But I know what my next article is going to be about.

The case is Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. Here is the opinion.

Greg

Area Blogger Reads Our Blog!

We have confirmation from teh InTeRw3bs that at least one person has read this page. Thanks to The UCL Practitioner for mentioning us in her Blawg Review # 183. And btw, the UCL Practitioner is always worth a read too if you pay any attention to California's Unfair Competition Law.

DGV

Election Day is a Vote on the Employee Free Choice Act

This is not a "partisan" blog. We don't care for whom you vote. We represent employers/ management, though. So, we tend to discuss legal developments through a prism of how they affect the employer. And that's. O.K.

I bring up the election because, let's face it, all blogs are about the election. Why should ours be any different? Oh, and it's pretty much a given that the fate of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" will turn on which candidate is elected President next Tuesday. It pays to know what the law is, what it will bring to your business, and whether you can live with it. We can certainly live with it here at SV (once we hire enough lawyers to handle all of the work that this law is going to generate for us.) Hint hint.

Essentially, the law (if passed) will make it possible for unions to organize workers without a secret ballot election, merely by signing up a "majority" of the workers in an appropriate bargaining unit. Once the union demonstrates its status as representative, contract negotiations must start within 10 days of the union's request. The parties must negotiate a first contract in 90 days. If the parties fail, then there's mediation. If you're ok with all this so far, then here's the part that might concern you if you are a business owner or manager (and maybe if you're a union member too): if mediation fails, a government appointed arbitrator will decide on a first contract for you. ("Hello, I'm the government arbitrator. I'm here to help. So, I'll be deciding the employees' wages, and what the terms of your contract will be, too!") If you don't believe, me, the link to the proposed law is here.

The private sector workforce is about 7% unionized now. When employers are able to explain to employees what unionization will bring, employers win the election about 50% of the time. But when employers are silent, unions win a vast majority of the time - possibly 80% of the time? If there is no secret ballot, no campaign and a union's representation will be based only on whether union organizers can convince employees to sign an authorization card at a pizza and beer fest down at the local union hall? Well, you do the math.

So, here's a selection of law firm articles on the EFCA. If you seek balance, try Yoga. Or you can Google the AFL-CIO's or union advocates' explanation of the law, too. Again, the text of the current version of the bill, HR 800, is here. There, now you can vote.

DGV

Son of Brinker?

Brinker's gone. But Brinkley's here! At least for now. In Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., the court of appeal issued a published opinion, in which it held that meal and rest periods merely must be provided, not forced. This holding tracks Brinker v. Superior Court (now on review).
The court in Brinkley relied on federal case law, the same cases on which the court of appeal in Brinker relied.

Given the similarity to Brinker, the Supreme Court may accept review of Brinkley under a "Grant and Hold" order. So, don't rely on Brinkley unless review is denied. We won't learn its fate for a couple of months.

The second key issue in Brinkley is the court's holding that the wage statement statute, Lab. Code section 226 requires proof of injury and some intent on behalf of the employer. That statute provides penalties of up to $4000 per employee for non-compliant wage statements....

Be careful out there!

DGV

DLSE: Brinker is Dead. Long Live Brinker!

Earlier this year, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement adopted the meal period standards that the Court of Appeal announced in the famous Brinker decision. We covered that DLSE memo here.

So now that the California Supreme Court decided to review the Brinker case, what will the DLSE do?

Well DLSE just issued a NEW memo in which it rescinds its Brinker memorandum, here. In its new "rescission" memo, the DLSE strongly suggests it will continue to enforce meal period laws such that an employer need not force employees to take meal periods; it simply must offer them. (So, to DLSE, Brinker is gone, but not forgotten).

Good news for employers facing DLSE claims. But in court, this area of the law remains pretty muddy.

Hat tip to Storm and Wage Law.

California Supreme Court Expands "Equitable Tolling" of Limitations Period

When an employee pursues internal remedies rather than filing a charge or lawsuit, the statute of limitations is tolled, the California Supreme Court said today. (That means the statute does not count the time during which the internal remedy is pursued, expanding the limitations period accordingly).

The Antelope Valley school district had a detailed internal procedure for investigating discrimination / harassment complaints. Plaintiff McDonald and others pursued the internal remedies. By the time they filed a discrimination charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, more than a year had passed since the last discriminatory act.

The limitations period is tolled for "continuing violations," for pursuing mandatory administrative agency remedies, and for other reasons. But the Court expanded that legal doctrine to the employer's internal processes. So, if you have an investigation procedure, grievance steps, internal peer review, or other informal, voluntary alternative dispute resolution procedure, the statute of limitations may be "tolled" while those proceedings continue. It will be important to send a letter telling employees when the internal remedies are no longer in effect to trigger the statute. It will also be important to secure witness information, documents, and the like, given that the employer may face litigation over stale issues down the road.

The opinion is McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District and the opinion is here.

California Supremes Accept Review in Brinker

In a not-very-surprising development, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the Brinker v. Superior Court decision, discussed here and here. And here.

When the California Supreme Court accepts review, the opinion cannot be cited. So, the law now reverts to the pre-Brinker days. Which means you should read my old article, here.

However, there is one wrinkle that remains to be ironed out. The DLSE, our labor standards agency, has adopted the Brinker opinion as its enforcement position. Will the DLSE leave its interpretation in effect while the high court considers the case? We shall see. The discussion of the DLSE memorandum regarding Brinker is here.

DGV

Reminder to Post Voting Time Notice

So, I hear there's an election soon. There's a rumor it's November 4.

At least 10 days before the election, employers in California must post this notice. Employers also must give employees up to two hours off to vote if they are unable to vote outside of work hours. Here is information from the California Secretary of State about the law.

Ninth Circuit Upholds San Francisco's Health Care Ordinance

A panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld San Francisco's Healthcare Security Ordinance. The ordinance requires employers either to maintain a certain expenditure on health care for its employees or contribute the minimum to the city. The city operates a healthcare access plan, called Healthy San Francisco, funded by these taxes - er - contributions by the employers.

The Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged SF's plan as preempted by ERISA.
Late in 2007, the district court held ERISA indeed preempted the ordinance. We posted on that here.

The district court's opinion lasted about a week. The Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's decision, foreshadowing its view that ERISA does not preempt the law. The Ninth Circuit panel decided the ordinance neither creates and ERISA plan nor "relates" to a plan. In its long opinion, the court rejected a series of arguments advanced by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and a number of amici curiae, including the U.S. Department of Labor.
Unless or until the Supreme Court overrules this case, it will probably result in more local ordinances establishing mandatory health care systems. Employers will have to have different benefits coverage in different jurisdictions, pay the higher taxes, or increase coverage to the highest common denominator....

The case is Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. San Francisco, and the opinion is here.

Governor Vetoes AB 437, AB 2279, AB 2918, AB 3062, AB 3063

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed several employment law bills:

AB 437 - would have stated the Legislature's intent to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, regarding the statute of limitations in discrimination cases.

AB 2279 - would have required employers to accommodate the use of medical marijuana.

AB 2918 - would have outlawed most credit checks except in narrow and specified circumstances.

AB 3062 - would have expanded the Labor Code's protection of employees whose wages are garnished.

AB 3063 - would have codified more limits on pre-employment inquiries regarding criminal convictions.