U.S. DOL Issues Administrator Interpretation Re Independent Contractors

The U.S. Department of Labor issues "Administrator Interpretations" now instead of opinion letters. In the past, the DOL would respond to individual employers' or  other constituents' questions about an FLSA issue.  The DOL would offer its opinion about the specific situation and disclaim that it broadly applied to other factual contexts, etc.

But in 2010, the DOL started issuing "Administrator Interpretations." These are not tied to any particular request for advice.  Rather, the Wage-Hour Administrator would pick a topic and offer an interpretation of an existing regulation.  Courts do not give these interpretations the same deference as actual regulations. But they are considered.  And the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the practice, discussed here.

With that background, you are ready to read the DOL's latest "Administrator Interpretation."  The agency has weighed in on the test for whether someone is an independent contractor or employee.  As you will see, in Administrator Interpretation 2015-1, the Administrator makes clear the DOL's enforcement position.  Here is the conclusion, verbatim:

In sum, most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definitions. The very broad definition of employment under the FLSA as “to suffer or permit to work” and the Act’s intended expansive coverage for workers must be considered when applying the economic realities factors to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The factors should not be analyzed mechanically or in a vacuum, and no single factor, including control, should be over-emphasized. Instead, each factor should be considered in light of the ultimate determination of whether the worker is really in business for him or herself (and thus is an independent contractor) or is economically dependent on the employer (and thus is its employee). The factors should be used as guides to answer that ultimate question of economic dependence. The correct classification of workers as employees or independent contractors has critical implications for the legal protections that workers receive, particularly when misclassification occurs in industries employing low wage workers.

(emphasis mine).

The Interpretation reaches that conclusion by analyzing the federal "economic realities" test for whether a worker is economically dependent on the employer (and therefore an employee) or in business for him or herself.  It should be noted that this economic realities test differs from the "right of control" test that California courts use, although there is overlap.  However, the Interpretation opines that the right to control is just one factor and that the economic realities test is actually broader, in that it sweeps more workers into employee status.   That is because, the Interpretation provides, the "economic realities" doctrine explains whom the employer "suffers or permits" to work, which is the definition of "employ" under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Administrator goes through familiar economic realities factors such as:
 - Is the work performed an integral part of the business?  (If so, employee)
 - Does the worker's managerial skill affect his / her opportunity for profit / loss (if so, contractor)
 - What is the nature of the worker's "investment" vs. the employer's investment relative to the work?
 - Does the work require special skill or initiative? (If so, contractor)
 - Is the relationship permanent or indefinite (if so, employee)
 - What is the nature of employer control.

As you will see, the Administrator emphasizes that no one factor is determinative.  The overarching issue is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the worker is in business for him or herself, or is economically dependent on the employer.  However, if the Administrator's views of the test carry the day in court, there will be far fewer independent contractors out there.

The Administrator Interpretation, No. 2015-1 is here. 

U.S. DOL Proposes Revisions to Some FLSA Exemptions' Minimum Salaries and More

The announcement is only 285 pages, and you can read the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Here.   The actual regulations are about 9 pages beginning on page 286 of the PDF.

I know you're reading headlines focusing on the salary test for exempt workers under the FLSA.   Yes, indeed the DOL proposes to raise that salary threshold for the exempt executive, administrative and artistic / learned professional exemptions.  That proposal is a salary of $921 / week or a minimum salary of $47,892 per year (unless you're in Samoa).  Here's the proposed general provision, a revision to 29 CFR 541.600:

To qualify as an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee under section 13(a)(1) of the Act, an employee must be compensated on a salary basis as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] at a rate per week of not less than $921 (or $774 per week, if employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal government), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities. As of [DATE TBD] on each subsequent year, such employee must be compensated on a salary basis at a rate per week of not less than the updated salary rate published annually by the Secretary in the Federal Register at least 60 days earlier (with the rate for American Samoa to be calculated at 84 percent of the updated salary rate, provided that when the highest industry minimum wage for American Samoa equals the minimum wage under 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1), exempt employees employed in all industries in American Samoa shall be paid the full salary rate), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities.

The proposal includes a way to increase the base salary without passing new regulations or laws. Under the proposal, the minimum salary will go up each year based on an announcement by the Secretary of Labor, to occur 60 days before the change. The change will be based on a calculation the DOL has not decided upon yet.  It will either rely on the "CPI-U" inflation index, or by adjusting the salary basis to maintain pace with actual wages paid to salaried workers.

The proposal retains the "highly compensated" exemption standard, which relaxes the duties test. But the "highly compensated" salary will increase to $122,148, again indexed in future years.

There will also be an hourly "computer exemption" rate of $27.63 for those employees who can otherwise satisfy the "computer" exemption.

The proposed regulations include explanations of how the salary test may be met, as well as language stating that additional hourly pay, bonuses, commissions, etc. above the minimum salary will not defeat the exemptions.

But wait, there's more.  The proposed regulations are all about salary.  But the DOL in its Notice is also "seeking input" on whether to change the "duties" tests for the exemption.  That is, the DOL is actively considering adopting California's standards regarding the white-collar exemption duties test.  California law, as you know, measures time spent on exempt duties and discourages "working managers" who "pitch in."

You don't believe me?  Sure you do. But here's an excerpt of the DOL's announcement regarding the duties test:

While the Department is not proposing specific regulatory changes at this time, the Department is seeking additional information on the duties tests for consideration in the Final Rule. Specifically, the Department seeks comments on the following issues:

A. What, if any, changes should be made to the duties tests?

B. Should employees be required to spend a minimum amount of time performing work that is their primary duty in order to qualify for exemption? If so, what should that minimum amount be?

C. Should the Department look to the State of California’s law (requiring that 50 percent of an employee’s time be spent exclusively on work that is the employee’s primary duty) as a model? Is some other threshold that is less than 50 percent of an employee’s time worked a better indicator of the realities of the workplace today?

D. Does the single standard duties test for each exemption category appropriately distinguish between exempt and nonexempt employees? Should the Department reconsider our decision to eliminate the long/short duties tests structure?

E. Is the concurrent duties regulation for executive employees (allowing the performance of both exempt and nonexempt duties concurrently) working appropriately or does it need to be modified to avoid sweeping nonexempt employees into the exemption? Alternatively, should there be a limitation on the amount of nonexempt work? To what extent are exempt lower-level executive employees performing nonexempt work?

If DOL follows through with this proposal, it will  - not hyperbole - drastically change wage hour law in states outside California. Those of you who know anything about California employment law, you know what will happen. For starters, there will have to be many, many conversions of now-exempt employees to non-exempt, resulting in huge overtime liability going forward, at the new, inflated wages caused by inflated minimum wage law. 

And second, for those employers that do not convert, FLSA collective actions will ensue like you have never seen before.  

These regulations are just a first step and may be revised, particularly based on comments the DOL receives. If you'd like to leave comments, the linked Notice provides instructions:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA11, by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Address written submissions to Mary Ziegler, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Instructions: Please submit only one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions must include the agency name and RIN, identified above, for this rulemaking. Please be advised that comments received will become a matter of public record and will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on the date indicated for consideration in this rulemaking. Commenters should transmit comments early to ensure timely receipt prior to the close of the comment period as the Department continues to experience delays in the receipt of mail in our area. For additional information on submitting comments and the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” section of this document. For questions concerning the interpretation and enforcement of labor standards related to the FLSA, individuals may contact the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) local district offices (see contact information below). Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

It will be interesting to see if the DOL can issued these regulations before the November 2016 election. If they can't, it will be interesting to see what the new president / DOL secretary says about this issue. 

Stay tuned....

Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court: Security Screenings Non-Compensable Under FLSA

The Supreme Court further explained how to determine whether time spent at work is "preliminary" or "postliminary" and therefore not compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  Per the Court:

The employer in this case required its employees, warehouse workers who retrieved inventory and packaged it for shipment, to undergo an antitheft security screening before leaving the warehouse each day.

The case involved temporary workers at an Amazon warehouse.  They were actually employed by Integrity Staffing Solutions, an agency.  Naturally, with all of that inventory around, security was important to minimize theft. So, 

Integrity Staffing required its employees to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse at the end of each day. During this screening, employees removed items such as wallets, keys, and belts from their persons and passed through metal detectors.

Busk and other employees filed a class action, claiming that the time spent on the screenings should be compensated because they were required to wait to be screened, because screening was for the employer's benefit, and because the screening process could take considerably more than a couple of minutes in some cases (sometimes up to 25 minutes even).

In a 9-0 opinion by Justice Thomas, with a concurrence by Justice Sotomayor with Justice Kagan joining, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The legal issue here involves the "Portal to Portal Act," which modified the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The P2P Act, as I like to call it today,  exempts from compensable time "activities which are preliminary to or postliminary" to "principal activities.” If they are pre- or post-luminary, they are not compensable.

Security screenings obviously are not "principal" actives. But that does not render them automatically pre- or postliminiary. That is because the term, "principal" activities, includes "all activities which are an ‘integral and indispensable part of the principal activities."

The Court explained what "integral and indispensable" means:

An activity is therefore integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.

Again, if it's "integral and indispensable" then it's compensable time under the FLSA.

So, the court applied the above definition of integral and indispensable to security screenings, thusly:

The security screenings at issue here are noncompensable postliminary activities. To begin with, the screenings were not the “principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform.” 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(1). Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve products from ware- house shelves and package those products for shipment to Amazon customers.

The security screenings also were not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ duties as warehouse workers. As explained above, an activity is not integral and indispensable to an employee’s principal activities unless it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform those activities. The screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment. And Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work.

(emphasis mine)

The Court rejected the 9th circuit court of appeals's conclusion that the time was compensable because the employees were "required" to undergo the screenings, and also rejected the notion that the time was compensable because it was for the employer's benefit:

If the test could be satisfied merely by the fact that an employer required an activity, it would sweep into “principal activities” the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to address. The employer in Anderson, for instance, required its employees to walk “from a timeclock near the factory gate to a workstation” so that they could “begin their work,” . . . . A test that turns on whether the activity is for the benefit of the employer is similarly overbroad.

The plaintiffs argued that the employer could have reduced the screening time by adding more screeners or by staggering break and shift times.  But the Court held that the employer's power to reduce the time it took did not change the character of  the activity from non-compensable to compensable. 

So, big victory for employers under the FLSA.  California employers, not so fast.

There is no P2P Act under California law.  Rather, all time is compensable if the employee is "subject to the control of the employer." That's why what may seem as "preiminary" or "postliminary" under California law may nonetheless be compensable.  As the California Supreme Court once wrote in rejecting importation of the P2P Act: "we conclude that the federal statutory scheme, which differs substantially from the state scheme, should be given no deference." Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575, 588 (2000).

Therefore, my opinion is, and I say that emphasizing this is NOT legal advice: employers should not change practices in California unless or until the California courts adopt the holding in this case, or unless or until a wage-hour lawyer with really good insurance says it's ok. 

Good luck out there.

The opinion in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk is here.

Greg 

Court of Appeal: Meal Period Class Action Not "Welcome to Walgreens"

This is not a class action post, bored blog readers. Read this one if you are interested in meal and break issues.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of class certification in a meal and break case.  The ruling is against a recent tide of class action opinions.  The opinion, though is good not only about class certification, but about explaining meal break rules.

The Court of Appeal explained the current state of California law on meal breaks in refreshing, plain English, as follows:

Under the make available standard, the employer merely must make meal breaks available. That is, the employer must relieve the employee of all job duties for the meal break, and then the employer may allow employees to decide for themselves whether to take the break. This make available standard thus allows an employee to choose to skip the break and, for instance, to leave work early instead. If the employer provides a break opportunity to the worker, the employer incurs no liability if the employee then decides to skip or delay the break.

Walgreens employees sometimes did decide to skip or delay breaks. One employee explained, for instance, that “I generally take my lunch breaks, but about once a week I will skip lunch because I want to be able to leave work early.” Another testified that, “[e]ven though it has always been Walgreens’ policy to provide a 30-minute meal period, I preferred to skip mine and instead leave early. If I am not hungry, which is typically the case, I do not need a meal period, especially since it is unpaid time.” There was other similar evidence about skipping or delaying breaks. 

The Court then explained what the law is not.

Under the alternative ensure standard, an employer must ensure employees take breaks. That is, an employer must make workers take meal breaks whether they want them or not. Employers are liable for missed meal breaks even when workers choose to skip their breaks because the ensure rule makes breaks mandatory. 

Recall that the California Supreme court has rejected the "ensure" standard.

The Court of Appeal then explained why the "make available" standard is not amenable to class certification:

Meal break classes are harder to certify under a make available test because the fact of a missed break does not dictate the conclusion of a violation (and thus employer liability). Rather, under the make available standard you additionally must ask why the worker missed the break before you can determine whether the employer is liable. If the worker was free to take the break and simply chose to skip or delay it, there is no violation and no employer liability. This make available test thus can make analysis of break violations more complex than under the ensure standard.

Amen.  Bold is mine.

The plaintiff, curiously, argued that Walgreens management's emails insisting that employees take meal breaks supported class certification.  The trial court disagreed and so did the Court of Appeal:

“Just an FYI . . . if anyone is on this list, they did not receive a lunch. Please, you must talk to the assistant managers and find out why. . . . please make a big deal about this . . . remind employees that it is their job to ask for a break or lunch if they did not receive it, but also remind the Managers on duty that they must have a break schedule created for every shift . . . there is no negotiation about this . . . there is no excuse not to give a break or lunch . . . look at your schedule and make sure you have the right people at the right time." 

* * * *

This email evidence cut against Collins’s motion. “[A]n employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1040.) These emails, however, do not show Walgreens pressuring employees to omit breaks. They show the opposite: Walgreens pressuring store managers to ensure employees took meal breaks. The emails show respect for workers’ rights, not pressure against them.

Here's a part of the opinion that makes me want to apply for State Bar Judge. The Court of Appeal exposed the plaintiff's attorney's practices of drafting form declarations containing information that contradicted what employees had told the plaintiffs'  lawyers, which the employees then signed anyway:

Collins presented 44 form declarations. They were mostly identical. Each one
stated that on some occasions “meal periods were not made available to me.” The ostensible reason was “we were short-handed and I was required to work through my meal period.” 

The trial court gave the declarations no weight because they were unreliable. Most deposition witnesses recanted their declarations to some degree or entirely. The prevalence of falsity in the declarations raised questions about how Collins’s lawyers had created these declarations in the first place. * * * 

The trial judge repeatedly said these declarations “appalled” him, and he told counsel, “You know better.” 

The trial court was “especially troubled” that, once deposed, so many witnesses recanted their declarations. 

Form declarations present a problem. When witnesses speak exactly the same words, one wonders who put those words there, and how accurate and reliable those words are. 

There is nothing attractive about submitting form declarations contrary to the witnesses’ actual testimony. This practice corrupts the pursuit of truth.
It was not error for the trial court to give these unreliable declarations no weight. 

To employers:
- Ensure your meal period policies are lawful and require employees to take meal periods. Do not make them "optional" because of the "make available" legal standard.  If they do not take them, contrary to company expectations, that will not result automatically in liability and will help  thwart class certification.
- Follow up on policies by auditing compliance and ensuring management and employees understand, in writing, that they are expected to comply with the policy, not wink at it.

To defense lawyers:
- Depose declarants and find out how they filled out declarations that are too good to be true. Do not accept form declarations that result in mass, identical testimony.

This case is In re Walgreens Overtime Cases and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Two New Arbitration Decisions Highlight Importance of Drafting Agreements Correctly

Here are two new decisions that illustrate why arbitration agreements have to be drafted properly to be enforced.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Rebolledo v. Tilly's, Inc. (opinion here)  is important for employers who issue revisions to policies and employment agreements.  Basically, Tilly's issued several versions of an arbitration agreement and did not adequately manage how the revisions' affected prior ones.  A 2001 version of the arbitration agreement excluded wage-hour claims within the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner.   A 2005 arbitration provision did not contain the exclusion. However, the 2001 agreement said that it required three signatures of company executives to modify it.  The 2005 provision did not include those signatures.

Upholding the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that the later arbitration agreement did not supersede the earlier one, and the earlier one did not cover Rebolledo's claims:

We agree with the trial court’s interpretation of the agreement holding arbitration would fall within the broad category of “employment policies” requiring the signature of three executives for any modification. And because the 2005 Agreement contains a material modification of the types of claims that must be arbitrated, it required the signature of three executives to be enforceable.

The employer in Galen v. Redfin Corporation (opinion here) won enforcement of its arbitration agreement, but the plaintiff challenged the arbitration agreement as limited to disputes concerning the interpretation of the arbitration agreement itself.

Paragraph 26 of the Agreement initially states: “In the event that any disputes arise regarding the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, such disputes shall be resolved as follows . . . .” (Italics added.) The paragraph goes on to discuss the use of good faith negotiations followed by mediation, if necessary. In the event mediation fails or is refused, the Agreement provides that all disputes “arising out of or related to this Agreement which have not been settled by mediation shall be resolved by binding arbitration within the State of Washington.” (Italics added.) 

The court ultimately determined that this language included claims concerning whether the plaintiff was an independent contractor agreement, but primarily because the arbitration provision was contained within the plaintiff's independent contractor agreement.  The plaintiff would have had a stronger argument if the arbitration agreement was "stand-alone."  So, it's important to draft the scope of the arbitration clause carefully.  A broader provision might read, for example, "any dispute regarding the [employment] [independent contractor] relationship, and the termination of that relationship or any other matter contained within this agreement."

The court's opinion in Galen is also notable because it held that a mutual attorney's fees provision and a forum selection clause did not render the agreement unconscionable.  The attorney's fees discussion did not address the other decisions that hold such agreements are unconscionable unless they explain that employers cannot recover fees under some statutory claims.  The forum selection clause discussion ostensibly authorizes employers to require arbitration outside of California if there is a logical relationship between the forum and the contract.   So, interesting decision, but one that may be at odds with others already on the books.

9th Circuit: California Meal / Rest Period Laws Apply to Trucking Companies; Not Preempted by Federal Law

Trucking companies subject to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act have litigated a number of cases concerning whether federal law preempts California wage-hour requirements concerning meal and rest periods.  The FAAAA provides: “States may not enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).

So, are meal / rest period laws "related to" a price, route or service? The district courts had split on the issue.  The Ninth Circuit finally weighed in with its first opinion on the matter.  The three-judge panel said:

Although we have in the past confronted close cases that have required us to struggle with the “related to” test, and refine our principles of FAAAA preemption, we do not think that this is one of them. In light of the FAAAA preemption principles outlined above, California’s meal and rest break laws plainly are not the sorts of laws “related to” prices, routes, or services that Congress intended to preempt. They do not set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly. They are “broad law[s] applying to hundreds of different industries” with no other “forbidden connection with prices[, routes,] and services.”

The court rejected all of the employer's arguments as to how meal / rest period laws adversely affect pricing, routes and service.  The court particularly emphasized that the California meal/ rest period  laws do not apply to motor carriers exclusively, but to nearly all employers in the state. 

So, truckers involved in the transportation of property covered by the FAAAA, the 9th Circuit has spoken regarding meal and rest periods.  The employer may seek "en banc" review or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.  Stay tuned.  

This case is Dilts v. Penske Logistics, Inc. and the opinion is here. 

Ninth Circuit Upholds Certification of On-Duty Meal Period Class

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that an employer's "on duty" meal period program for security guards was susceptible to class action treatment.

The big issue here is the Court's analysis of when on-duty meal periods are authorized under California law.  The general rule is that unpaid meal periods are compliant with California law only if the employee is relieved of all duty. There is an exception:

An “on duty” meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time.

Although on duty meal periods are paid as hours worked, the missed meal period penalty / premium does not apply.

When does the "nature of the work" prevent an employee from being relieved of all duty?  The Court of Appeals noted that the California courts have not explored this issue in any detail. A federal court is supposed to predict how the California Supreme Court would decide the issue.  This Court did not mention that requirement.  Nor did the Court certify the question to the California Supreme Court, as it has the power to do. Instead, the Court primarily reviewed the DLSE opinion letters on the subject of the "nature of the work" exception.

we can characterize the instances in which DLSE has found that the “nature of the work” exception applies into  two categories: (1) where the work has some particular, external force that requires the employee to be on duty at all times, and (2) where the employee is the sole employee of a particular employer.

The Court also relied on a post-Brinker Court of Appeal opinion involving security guards, where the state court upheld class certification.  That case, Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assocs.,  216 Cal. App. 4th 220 (2013), involved security guards too.  But the Court of Appeal in Faulkinbury was simply concerned with whether the employees' claims should proceed as a class based on Boyd's policy, not a definitive evaluation of the on-duty meal period law.

This Abdullah case also involved security guards assigned to work at schools, hospitals, etc.  In many instances, only one guard was assigned to do the work at the particular site.  The Court of Appeals rejected the employer's argument that a lone security guard automatically is entitled to an on-duty meal period - because s/he is ALONE at the job site (at least the only U.S. Security Associates employee):

First, as the district court explained, the DLSE letters make clear that “the showing necessary to establish the ‘nature of the work’exception is a high one.” In order to make such a showing, USSA had to demonstrate not just that its employees’ duties
varied, but that they varied to an extent that some posts would qualify for the “nature of the work” exception, while others would not. It failed to do so. Indeed, USSA’s sole explanation for why it requires on-duty meal periods is that its guards are staffed at single-guard locations. It does not argue that any particular posts would qualify for the “nature of the work” exception absent the single-guard staffing model.

Then the Court appeared to say that the employer must prove that the tasks themselves prevent the employee from taking a meal period even when the employee works alone:

Consider, for example, the illustrative list of duties that USSA has provided to demonstrate the variety of its employees duties:  [T]he duties performed by security guards include patrolling parking lots; checking receipts; signing in and out trucks; setting up  school parking lots and assisting with student drop-offs and pick-ups; inspecting vehicles; restraining unruly patients; escorting dead bodies; checking the inventory, mileage, and temperature of trucks; working undercover to catch shoplifters; monitoring psychiatric patients; checking in employees and answering phones at a front desk; performing surveillance; and enforcing hotel quiet hours.

These duties are undoubtedly distinct from one another, but the only reason any of them “prevent” the employee from taking a meal period is because USSA has chosen to adopt a single-guard staffing model. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 11(A) (stating that an “on-duty” meal periodis permitted “only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty” (emphasis added)).

The Court  seems to be saying that the job's tasks themselves must preclude an off-duty meal, even if the employee works alone.  If that is the Court's position, then in many cases employers will have to hire people for the sole purpose of relieving employees who work alone, or pay the meal period premiums associated with on-duty meal periods.

That said, the Court and DLSE have noted there are jobs involving solo employees that could qualify for on-duty meal periods, such as a late-night gas station where there were no other workers, or a truck driver carrying dangerous materials.

So, if California courts decide to adopt the reasoning of this case, it could further narrow the on-duty meal period exception. Additionally, employers attempting to secure on-duty meal period waivers must carefully consider the employee's job duties.  If the duties "always" prevent an off duty lunch because the job is inherently too dangerous or isolated, fine.  But if the employee's duties vary such that the employee could take an off-duty meal on some days but not others, that on duty agreement could be held invalid if it precludes employees from taking off duty meal periods when they can do so.

The case is Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Meal/Rest/Wage Statement Class Action Should Be Certified

Safeway compensated truck drivers based on a compensation formula rather than a straight hourly rate: 

The collective bargaining agreements also obligated Safeway to utilize what it calls an activity based compensation system to determine the drivers‟ wages. Pay was calculated based on (1) mileage rates applied according to the number of miles driven, the time of day the trips were taken, and the locations where the trips began and ended; (2) fixed rates for certain tasks (e.g., rates for number of pallets delivered and picked up); (3) an hourly rate for a predetermined amount of minutes for certain tasks (e.g., paid for 10 minutes at hourly rate for set-up time at each store); and (4) an hourly rate for delays (e.g., breakdowns, impassable highways, time spent at scales, or other causes beyond the driver‟s control).

Drivers logged their mileage and activities for each trip manually on trip sheets. They also logged their activities into an onboard computer system known as the XATA system. Through XATA, Safeway tracked the drivers' moves, including their stops. The drivers input codes into XATA to record specific reasons for delays. Neither the trip sheets nor the XATA system, however, provided a place or means to record meal or rest periods.

 
So, the compensation system did not include separate payment for contractually and legally required rest periods.  Safeway argued that the paid rest periods were included in its compensation formula, presumably because the payment for miles and tasks assumed the rest periods would be taken during these activities.  Safeway also had drivers sign time cards to acknolwedge they were authorized and permitted to take rest periods. 
The trial court refused to certify a sub-class of rest period claims.  But the court of appeal reversed.  The court held Safeway's system of compensation was akin to a piece rate method of compensation.  And, the court decided, California law does not allow paid rest periods to be included in piece rates because it was an improper averaging of compensation: 

under the rule of Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314, 323 (Armenta), rest periods must be separately compensated in a piece-rate system. Rest periods are considered hours worked and must be compensated. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11070, subd. 12; 11090, subd. 12.) Under the California minimum wage law, employees must be compensated for each hour worked at either the legal minimum wage or the contractual hourly rate, and compliance cannot be determined by averaging hourly compensation.

The court expressly held that there was a common issue for determining liability - that the compensation system did not compensate employees for paid rest periods separately. The court did so by holding that piece rates may not include payment for rest periods. That is another way of saying that there was no payment for rest periods as a matter of law.

With all respect to the court of appeal, this decision seems to over-analyze the merits of the case.  The court seems to be saying the common proof is that all rest periods were paid incorrectly as a matter of law.  Without saying so, therefore, the court essentially granted summary judgment for the plaintiff rather than just class certification. 

While we're talking about the merits, I am not sure I understand why the piece rate payment cannot include implied payment for rest periods, as Safeway testified it did. An hourly pay rate does not expressly include payment for rest periods either.  During the hour that an employee takes a rest period, he is paid the same hourly rate, but simply works less.  During the hour that an employee does not take a rest period, she receives the same rate as if she did take one. Employers likely set their hourly rates under the assumption that the employee will take a rest period during one of every four hours worked.  The hourly rate therefore "averages" compensation, which the cout said could not be done.   Anyway, I don't get a vote.  So, I descend from my soap box, dejected.

The court also certified a meal period sub-class class on the basis that there was a common issue regarding whether Safeway adequately provided second meal periods before 2006, which is when the case was filed.  The court did not reach the plaintiff's argument that Safeway did not do enough to ensure drivers were relieved of duty, because the one common issue was enough for class certification.  This part of the decision may not be all that significant to employers who adequately provide for both meal periods per Brinker.  Safeway changed practices in 2006.

Finally, the court of appeal decided the wage statement sub-class should be certified.  The court agreed that the wage statement did not adequately spell out wage rates applicable to miles driven, such that the employees would have to refer to their own trip sheets to verify whether they received adequate compensation and engage in mathematical calculations:

Plaintiff‟s argument goes to the structure of the wage statements. As a result, his and the other drivers‟ claims of injury on account of the wage statements will be resolved by means of common proof. The structural omissions in the wage statements, and their alleged violation of Labor Code section 226, are, like employer policies, the types of matters best resolved by class adjudication.

There have been other decisions regarding  piece rates lately. See, e.g., here.  Employers should review their compensation plans to ensure compliance with minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest period laws.

This case is Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal - Managers Supervising While Performing Non-Exempt Tasks Are Non-Exempt

Safeway stores employ assistant managers who supervise many employees and have responsibility for hiring, supervising, budget compliance, etc.  But the stores' "operating budgets" and other policies allegedly require assistant managers to work the cash register and perform bookkeeping duties at times.  The assistant managers can supervise associates while "multi-tasking" / working the checkout line.

The plaintiff, Linda Heyen, was an assistant manager. The trial court found she worked about 54 hours a week, and spent a great deal of time at the check stand and performing bookkeeping tasks, even though she was able to supervise the store simultaneously.  An advisory jury concluded that Safeway did not prove Heyen was exempt.  The trial court instructed the jury that it should consider the primary purpose for "mixed" activities - those that involved both non-exempt work and supervision.

Safeway argued this:

So long as the manager is still actively functioning in his/her managerial capacity, and addressing his/her attention to managerial tasks such as observing how the store is running and considering how to make the store perform more efficiently and profitably, how to best model and train the store's employees in proper service activities, how to resolve any employee or operational problems that have arisen or are arising, and instructing employees in that regard, etc., all that time should be considered to fall on the 'exempt' side of the ledger—even if the manager is helping customers or handling product at the same time.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of federal regulations, the wage order, and California case law, which you can read in the opinion. The punch line is this:

the federal regulations cited in Wage Order 7 expressly recognize that managers sometimes engage in tasks that do not involve the "actual management of the department [or] the supervision of the employees therein." (§ 541.108(a).) In those circumstances, the regulations do not say, as Safeway would have us hold, that those tasks should be considered "exempt" so long as the manager continues to supervise while performing them. Instead, the regulations look to the supervisor‟s reason or purpose for undertaking the task. If a task is performed because it is "helpful in supervising the employees or contribute[s] to the smooth functioning of the department for which [the supervisors] are responsible" (§ 541.108(a), (c)), the work is exempt; if not, it is nonexempt.

The court also found that when the company's expectations regarding the budgeted non-exempt hours, production standards, etc. virtually or expressly require the exempt manager to take on non-exempt tasks, the employer cannot argue that the employee did not live up to its expectations by performing non-exempt work.

So, employers, "working" / floor management, leads, etc. are more likely to be classified as "non-exempt" after this opinion, particularly when these managers are performing duties that non-exempt workers are simultaneously performing.   I predict the price of cheesy-poofs will be increasing or the checkout lines are going to be a little longer.

The case is Heyen v. Safeway and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Union Contracts Must Clearly and Unmistakably Waive Rights Under California Vacation Law

It's California employment law 101 that employers must pay out all "vested" vacation time when an employee's employment ends.  No "use it or lose it" and no limits on "carry over" are allowed under Labor Code Section 227.3.  There's an exception in the statute though, which says the statute applies "[u]nless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement."

What does "otherwise provided" mean?  Well employer Celite had a collective bargaining relationship, and their agreement provided as follows, according to the Court of Appeal:

Celite granted its employees between one and five weeks of vacation annually. Each January, Celite calculated a yearly "vacation allotment" based on each employee's length of employment and the number of hours they worked the year before. [The] employees terminated from Celite were entitled to "receive whatever vacation allotment is due them upon separation."[fn] For 25 years, both Celite and the Union understood this provision to refer to the "vacation allotment" as defined above. Accordingly, Celite paid terminated employees for the vacation time already allotted to them for the year of their termination, but did not pay them the vacation time they had accrued toward the next year's allotment.

The description above suggests that the contract required payment of whatever vacation balance the employee had, but did not take into account "accrual" of vacation during the current year.  Pretty clear to me.

 

Not clear enough for the Court of Appeal, though, and I don't get a vote.  The Court decided that because vacation pay is a significant state-law right, any waiver of 227.3's requirements had to be "clear and unmistakable." Here's what the Court said:

To be clear and unmistakable, a waiver must do more than speak in "'[b]road, general language." (Vasquez, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 435.) It must be specific, and mention either the statutory protection being waived or, at a minimum, the statute itself. (Accord, Hoover v. American Income Life Ins. Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1208.) The Agreements here neither mention pro rata vacation pay nor cite section 227.3. Celite points out that the Agreements "affirmatively address" vacation payments upon termination. But discussing a topic while at the same time saying nothing about the statutory right at issue does not affect a clear and unmistakable waiver of that right.

So, please check your union contracts and either negotiate a clear provision that waives Section 227.3 expressly and, preferably, quotes the statute.  This is why California release agreements quote Civil Code Section 1542, in case you've ever wondered about that.

On the bright side, the Court of Appeal decided the employer did not act "willfully" by following the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, was not on the hook for "waiting time" penalties.  The court said that this was the first opinion deciding the standard for waivers under Section 227.3, and so the employer's mistake of law was not "willful."

Some times I wonder what all those class action plaintiff lawyers are doing after Brinker and Dukes v. Walmart put a damper on things.  (Ok, not really).  Well, here is the Court of Appeal riding to the rescue. 

It may be that the California or even U.S. Supreme Court may review this case, but the odds are long. If this case stays on the books, all union contracts prescribing a vacation payout provision that is less generous than Section 227.3 are subject to attack.  Make with the bargaining, employers.

The case is Choate v. Celite Corporation, and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Rare Opinion on Inside Sales Exemption

Tyrone Muldrow and a class of recruiters sued their employer, Surrex Solutions Corporation,  for unpaid overtime, meals and breaks.  The trial court held that the employees were exempt undre the "inside sales exemption" and that the company had adequately provided meals and breaks.  The Supreme Court issued a "grant and hold" order pending the decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1037.

On remand after Brinker, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed its earlier decision.  It's blogworthy because of the discussion of the "inside sales exemption" under the wage order .

The exemption is contained in both wage order 4 and wage order 7.  The court did not address which wage order applies, but quoted from wage order 7:

California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 7-2001 exempts from this statutory overtime compensation requirement "any employee whose earnings exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the minimum wage if more than half of that employee's compensation represents commissions." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D).)

Under federal law, this is known as the "inside sales" or "7(i)" exemption.

For the above exemption to apply, the employees had to be "selling" a product or service. 

Appellants' primary job duty was to recruit "candidates" for employer "clients." Surrex's clients would place "job orders" with Surrex and appellants would search for potential candidates to fill the job orders. Appellants would use various resources to find candidates, including an internal database that Surrex maintained and various "on-line job boards."

The court decided that these recruiters were "selling" the recruiting services, and that the other activities they engaged in were part of the sales process.

The court then decided that the compensation the recruiters received were "commissions" because they were sufficiently related to the sales price - the revenue the business received for placements:

the sole argument that appellants offer to support their contention that the term "commissions" in the commissioned employees exemption (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D)) should be construed as excluding commission systems such as Surrex's, is that such a formula is "too complex." Appellants' contention that the Surrex's commission system is "too complex" is neither factually accurate nor legally relevant. The formula was clearly stated in the employees' employment agreements and, in most cases, could be calculated simply by knowing the candidate's "bill rate" and "pay rate" (both of which the consulting service managers, themselves, negotiated).15 In any event, appellants fail to cite any authority for the proposition that complexity is, or should be, a factor in determining whether a compensation scheme constitutes a commission under relevant California law.

The court also decided that the commission plan was "bona fide" because the commissions regularly exceeded draw.

So, the court decided that the trial court was correct because the inside sales exemption applies.


There are a couple of things the court did not decide that might have affected the outcome. First, the court did not appear to actually decide if Wage Order 4 or 7 is the correct one. The court quoted from Wage Order 7, which applies to all employees working in the "mercantile" industry.   The definition of "mercantile" applies to the sale of goods, not recruiting agencies. From the Wage Order: "'Mercantile Industry' means any industry, business, or establishment operated for the purpose of purchasing, selling, or distributing goods or commodities at wholesale or retail; or for the purpose of renting goods or commodities."

Rather, Wage Order 4 applies to occupations such as office workers, if an industry order does not apply.

The applicable Wage Order actually does not affect the exemption under California law because that exemption is contained in both Wage Order 4 and 7. (The Court should have cited the correct one, though).   The issue, though, is that the federal "7(i)" exemption applies only to "retail" establishments. In fact, the applicable Department of Labor regulations specifically exclude employment agencies from the definition of a retail establishment. See regulation here.  I can't say for certain that Surrex is not a "retail" establishment under federal law, but someone probably should take a look at that issue if he/she hasn't already. 

This is one of the few instances in which California law is less generous than federal law. Although an employee may be exempt under California law, if an employee is not "exempt" under federal law, then federal law will require overtime for work performed over 40 hours in a work week. I may have missed something, but the court's opinion does not seem to address federal law, or the wage order issue. Yet, the court does acknowledge the existence of the 7(i) exemption at footnote 14 of the opinion. Annnyyyway, I may be nuts, or someone has some splaining to do, or both! The message to our dear readers remains:   Please do not apply the inside sales exemption unless you consider both state and federal law.
 The case is Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp. and the opinion is here.  

California - New Wage Rates Announced for Computer Exemption

Under Labor Code Section 515.5, some computer software employees are considered exempt if they meet certain duties and compensation criteria.  The compensation rate is supposed to vary with the rate of inflation.

The California Division of Labor Statistics and Research has just adjusted the minimum pay rates for the exemption for 2012:

Old hourly rate:  $37.94
New rate:  $38.89

Old monthly salary: $6,587.50
New monthly salary: $6,752.19

Old annual salary: $79,050.00
New annual salary  $81,026.25

The DLSR's memorandum announcing the change is here.

Thanks to the Cal Chamber for pointing this out.

Greg

Brinker!! Argument is 11/08/11

The California Supreme Court will hear arguments in Brinker v. Superior Court (see a bunch of posts here) regarding employers' obligations to provide meal periods.  Argument is November 8 in San Francisco.  I'm so excited, I need a rest period.  Docket is here.

DGV