U.S. Supreme Court: Plaintiffs Must Prove "But-For" Causation in Federal Age Discrimination Claims

So, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not permit "mixed motive" jury instructions. That is because the plaintiff's burden of proof is to always show that age was THE cause of a challenged adverse action. Unlike Title VII and California's FEHA, the ADEA does not permit the plaintiff to merely prove that a discriminatory motive was just one of many. Big case under the ADEA, but it will have no real effect on California age discrimination litigation under FEHA.

Here are the facts from the opinion:

Jack Gross began working for respondent FBL Financial Group, Inc. (FBL), in 1971. As of 2001, Gross held the position of claims administration director. But in 2003, when he was 54 years old, Gross was reassigned to the position of claims project coordinator. At that same time, FBL transferred many of Gross’ job responsibilities to a newly created position—claims administration manager. That position was given to Lisa Kneeskern, who had previously been supervised by Gross and who was then in her early forties. Although Gross (in his new position) and Kneeskern received the same compensation, Gross considered the reassignment a demotion because of FBL’s reallocation of his former job responsibilities to Kneeskern.

Gross filed suit . . . alleging that his reassignment to the position of claims project coordinator violated the ADEA, which makes it unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against an employee "because of such individual’s age." 29 U. S. C. §623(a). The case proceeded to trial, where Gross introduced evidence suggesting that his reassignment was based at least in part on his age. FBL defended its decision on the grounds that Gross’ reassignment was part of a corporate restructuring and that Gross’ new position was better suited to his skills. . . .

The courts below wrestled with the proper standard of proof, assuming that Title VII's frameworks and analyses equally applied to the ADEA. The Supreme Court, which accepted review of the case to determine the proper time to give a "mixed motive" instruction in an ADEA case, answered: Never.

The Court's 5-4 majority reasoned that the ADEA statute is worded differently from Title VII, and that Congress passed a law amending Title VII to allow "mixed motive" cases, but did not simultaneously amend the ADEA. So, to sum up:

We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.

The dissent argued strenuously that the Court should not have reached the question that it decided because it was not presented for review. Then the dissenters, in two opinions, would have held that the language in the ADEA did not require "but-for" causation, and that courts had used Title VII precedent to interpret the ADEA's causation standards.

Congress can overturn this decision by simply incorporating Title VII's causation standards into the ADEA, or by simply adding "age" to Title VII and ending the separate statutory schemes. The majority pointed out Congress has taken up Title VII and ADEA amendments before without harmonizing the causation standards. I guess we'll find out soon enough if Congress omitted that amendment intentionally.

The case is Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs. and the opinion is here.

HAPPY 3D BIRTHDAY TO US!

Yep, it's that time of year when we issue a self-congratulatory Happy Birthday! As the venerable and respected advocates for less fortunate wine coolers, Bartles & Jaymes (LLP) once said, "Thanks for your support. "

And this means that next week will be the third anniversary of this blog! (Unsubscribe now -before the obligatory "Happy Anniversary to WNIEL" post).

Oh, and if that weren't enough, we just won a 3 year old trade secrets case! If you haven't sent us an appropriately lavish gift by now...

Thanks again everybody. Oh and I'll be posting on cases and employment law and stuff this weekend.

Greg

California Supreme Court LOVES litigation

The California Supreme Court continued its streak of pro-litigation decisions today. What am I talking about? The recent "Tobacco Cases," - expanding the availability of unfair business practice class actions, the anti-arbitration decisions, the pro-class action certification opinions, the Court's common theme lately seems to be - lawsuits good! Too bad the courts are struggling for funds to hear all these cases, there are few disincentives to bring frivolous litigation, and businesses already on shaky financial ground can't afford to be in court. OK, down off the soapbox.

Anyway, in this most recent installment, the California high court considered certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, including whether proof of intentional discrimination is a required element of claims brought under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Act is the civil rights law that protects the public from discrimination in places of public accommodation. It's the principal state law used in disability access cases. Money damages are available for violations, making the Unruh Act more interesting than laws permitting only injunctions.

This is not an employment law case per se. But many employers operate businesses that are subject to the Unruh Act (retail, restaurants hospitals, etc.) . So, I thought I would mention this case.

The Unruh Act says that a violation of Title III of the ADA (prohibiting discriminating in public accommodations by failure to make facilities accessible) is also a violation of the Unruh Act. The Court decided that because the ADA does not require intentional discrimination in access cases, neither did the Unruh Act. (The rest of the Unruh Act, prohibiting discrimination on a variety of bases, does require intentional discrimination, though, which is why the Supreme Court had to decide the case).

So, disability access litigation is alive and well! The case is Munson v. Del Taco, and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: No Post Termination Commissions for You

Here are the facts as stated by the court:

Defendant hired plaintiff as a sales representative on October 4, 1999. On that date, the parties entered a written employment agreement, which provided (among other things) that: (1) plaintiff was responsible for web-hosting sales; (2) plaintiff‟s starting salary was $24,000 per year, plus commissions of 4 percent "on all direct initial sales"; (3) defendant "will be eligible for commission pay as set forth in this [document], so long as [plaintiff] remains employed with the Company as a Sales Representative"; and (4) the employment agreement "may be amended only by a written agreement executed by each of the parties hereto."

In April 2001, defendant promoted plaintiff to "Channel Manager." The parties entered a new oral agreement that provided (among other things) that: (1) plaintiff‟s salary was increased to $75,000 per year, and (2) plaintiff would receive commissions of "„20% of the up front costs‟ revenues on all accounts brought in by [plaintiff] or through [plaintiff‟s] contacts or efforts."

So, the plaintiff was later fired and sought commissions for a transaction that occurred after he left, but which was (at least according to him) was "through plaintiff's contacts or efforts."

The court made short work of the plaintiff's argument that he was entitled to post-termination commissions. On plaintiff's breach of contract claim, the court held:


We agree with defendant that, on its face, the italicized language is reasonably susceptible to only one interpretation—that once plaintiff ceased to be employed by defendant, he would no longer be eligible for commission pay. While plaintiff could have relied on extrinsic evidence (if there were such evidence) to suggest an alternative meaning of this provision, he did not do so. (Compare Wolf v. Superior Court (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1358 ["[T]his extrinsic evidence of trade usage exposed a latent ambiguity in the contract language and presented an alter[n]-ative interpretation to which the term „gross receipts‟ was reasonably susceptible in the circumstances."].) Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of law that the written employment agreement precludes plaintiff from collecting additional commissions post-termination.

On the plaintiff's claim under the Labor Code, the court said that although commissions are wages:

for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code, "[t]he right of a salesperson or any other person to a commission depends on the terms of the contract for compensation." (Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1330; see also Steinhebel, at p. 705 ["contractual terms must be met before an employee is entitled to a commission"].) Accordingly, plaintiff‟s right to commissions "must be governed by the provisions of the [employment agreement]." (Steinhebel, at p. 705.) We have already concluded that, pursuant to the plain language of the written employment agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to any further commissions after he was terminated. Accordingly, defendant‟s failure to pay such commissions cannot constitute a violation of the Labor Code.

The court did not consider whether the commission contract was "unconscionable" because it was not pleaded. So, that door remains open in commission cases. However, the court also did not consider the question of whether commissions were "earned" before termination and therefore should have been paid. Presumably, that issue was not argued by the plaintiff. If your plaintiff makes this argument, this case could be distinguishable.

Finally, there is the argument that the employer fired the employee to avoid paying unpaid commissions. But the plaintiff waived that argument too. So, because this case was not as vigorously litigated as it might have been, be careful before you rely on it too heavily. On the other hand, the courts will enforce straightforward commission plans that contain contingencies on the right to payment, such as continued employment.

The case is Nein v. Hostpro, Inc. and the opinion is here.

DGV

Court of Appeal: Labor Code Provisions Don't Apply to Public Entities Unless They Expressly Are Made Applicable

The court of appeal held that Labor Code sections 510 (overtime) and 512 (meal periods) do not apply to government entities because the Legislature did not expressly say they were applicable. AB 60, the bill codified in the 500's of the Lab. Code, has a provision applying some of its provisions to a narrow class of government entities. But not these provisions, and not against this agency. Therefore, the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District's demurrer to a wage and hour class action was upheld on appeal.

The most interesting argument was that Wage Order 17, applicable to "Miscellaneous" employees, brought a water district within the scope of the wage orders, daily overtime, and meal periods. Nope. The intent of Wage Order 17, the court reasoned, was to include employees within some new industry or occupation not contemplated before. But water districts have been around for a long time.

The court also held that sections 201-203, addressing timing of final pay and waiting time penalties, did not apply to a water district. That's because section 220 exempts government entities, including "other municipal corporations." Water districts are "other municipal corporations" under prior case law.

This means that water districts, like other government entities, are subject only to the federal FLSA, unless a state wage and hour law expressly applies. Perhaps our state and local governments will save some money defending against these class actions now, and slightly shrink their incredible deficits. ::::Off soapbox::::

This case is Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. and the opinion is here.

DGV

Court of Appeal Stiffs Baristas

Remember that time when the Starbucks Baristas won $86,000,000 because the shift supervisors took their tips? That was awesome.

[Sorry, I like Chris Farley. Sue me. I'll SLAPP you.]

Anyway, some time ago, we wrote about that huge Starbucks verdict over this tip pooling issue here. Then came the flood of tip pooling cases this winter and spring, discussed here and here. The Supreme Court is working on at least one of the cases here.

And now, the court of appeal just made real the Starbucks plaintiffs' worst nightmare: they reversed the monster $86,000,000.00-ish judgment quicker than as you can say tall no-whip-mocha with foam. As if I would ever say that.

The court held that the tips were placed in a community box for all service-related employees to share. Therefore, the court reasoned, the tip pooling statute did not even apply and the company was free to share tips with the service leads. The managers and assistant managers did not share in the tips.

So, easy come, easy go. We will see if the Supreme Court agrees to take up this case as well.

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

DGV

Small Employers Alert: AB 23 - Cal COBRA Amendment

Small employers - take note! Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 23, which implements the federal COBRA amendments contained in the "stimulus" bill (ARRA) and applies it to small employers covered by Cal-COBRA. This is an "urgency statute" that took effect on May 12, when it was signed into law.

Is your head spinning? Mine too. We're a small employer, too.

Well, the good news is most small employers rely on their health plans to distribute Cal-COBRA notices. So, just check with your insurers and brokers about this, mmmkay? I hope they will have this covered.

In case they don't - The new law will require notices to be sent to anyone having a qualifying event between 9/1/08 and May 12, 2009 ASAP (May 26, even). The notices explain eligibility for premium discounts under ARRA and give those who did not elect Cal-COBRA a second chance to do so.

The premium discounts offered to Cal-COBRA-eligible employees will result in tax deductions taken by the insurance companies in the case of Cal-COBRA. There will be verification of Cal-COBRA qualifying events to ensure those electing Cal-COBRA and seeking premium discounts are eligible under ARRA.

Incidentally, if you've missed all the hullabaloo about ARRA and the COBRA amendments, you can catch up here.

Court of Appeal: Arbitrate DLSE Wage Claim

So, can an employer require employees to bring wage claims in arbitration instead of at the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement? If the arbitration agreement is otherwise drafted properly, Yes.

As explained by the court,

Frank Moreno is a former employee of Sonic, which owns and operates an automobile dealership. As a condition of his employment with Sonic, Moreno signed a predispute agreement that required both parties to submit their employment disputes to "binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1280 et seq. . . .)." By its terms, the arbitration agreement applied to "all disputes that may arise out of the employment context . . . that either [party] may have against the other which would otherwise require or allow resort to any court or other governmental dispute resolution forum[,] . . . whether based on tort, contract, statutory, or equitable law, or otherwise." At some point, Moreno left his position with Sonic. In December 2006, Moreno filed an administrative wage claim with the Labor Commissioner for unpaid
vacation pay pursuant to section 98 et seq. Moreno alleged that he was entitled
to unpaid "[v]acation wages for 63 days earned 7/15/02 to 7/15/06 at the rate of
$441.29 per day."

So, why was the agreement enforceable even against the Labor Commissioner? The court of appeal decided that there was nothing precluding the substitution of the arbitrator for the deputy labor commissioner. The plaintiff argued that arbitration would not include the special stautory provisions regarding the de novo appeal to superior court after the hearing. But the court was unpersuaded. The court also found that the agreement complied with the protections of the California Supreme Court's decision in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83. The court did not analyze the agreement's provisions, though. So, we have to assume that this agreement was sufficiently "mutual," provided for the employer to bear the unique costs of arbitration, etc.

The case is Sonic-Calabassas A, Inc. v. Moreno, and the opinion is here.

California Court of Appeal: "Me Too" Declarations Admissible

"Me too" evidence is when a plaintiff attempts to prove discrimination by showing that other employees have suffered discrimination. It can come in the form of live testimony at trial, or declarations in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

Back in 2008, the Supreme Court of the U.S. held that "me too" evidence was neither categorically admissible nor inadmissible. We posted about that here.

California's Evidence Code is similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence in a number of respects. The Court of Appeal recently decided that co-employees' declarations claiming similar discrimination was admissible to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Basically, the plaintiff, Dewandra Johnson, claimed discrimination against her because of her pregnancy. The employer, United Cerebral Palsy / Spastic Children's Foundation etc., claimed it fired her because she falsified time records. The Court of Appeal, reversing summary judgment in favor of the employer, found several issues from which the jury could determine that the real reason was discrimination. These evidentiary submissions included declarations from co-workers that claimed the same managers who fired the plaintiff had trumped up reasons for discharging them on the basis of pregnancy. Here's what the court said:

5. Declarations from Other Employees Also Constitute Substantial Evidence That
Requires Reversal of the Summary Judgment
The challenged "me to[o]" declarations that plaintiff included in her opposition to defendant‟s motion for summary judgment constitute substantial evidence requiring reversal of the judgment. Former employees of defendant stated in their declarations that (1) they too were fired by defendant after they became pregnant, (2) they know of someone who was fired by defendant because she was pregnant, (3) they resigned
because Jimenez made their work stressful after they notified her they were trying to become pregnant, or (4) they know of occasions when employees who were
dishonest or cited for dishonesty, were not fired by defendant. These employees
worked at the same facility where plaintiff worked, they were supervised by the
same people that supervised plaintiff (Jimenez and Sandgren), and their supervisors were, in turn, supervised by Jones. This is substantial evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact as to why defendant fired plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal then surveyed the case law supporting admission of this evidence to show pretext, concluding:

The evidence sets out factual scenarios related by former employees of the defendant that are sufficiently similar to the one presented by the plaintiff
concerning her own discharge by defendant, and the probative value of the
evidence clearly outweighs any prejudice that would be suffered by defendant by
its admission. Dissimilarities between the facts related in the other employees‟ declarations and the facts asserted by plaintiff with regard to her own case go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

So, the case turns on the similarity between the plaintiff's claims and her co-workers'. Had the co-workers' evidence been less similar, the court might have decided their admissibility a different way.

The case is JOHNSON v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY/SPASTIC CHILDREN‟S FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES, and the opinion is here.

DFEH Issues 2008 Annual Report

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing enforces California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the anti-discrimination and medical leave law. The agency just issued its annual report for 2008, which you can find here. It's graphic-heavy and mercifully short!

Of note, the DFEH noted discrimination complaints were up nearly 20% over 2007. The agency took in about 20,000 discrimination charges, almost 19,000 of which alleged employment (rather than housing) discrimination.

How does that break down? The most common form of discrimination alleged? Disability (about a third of the charges filed). Retaliation was right behind disability. Race, sexual harassment, and age discrimination constituted about 20% each of the total.

DFEH settled about 960 cases, for about $9.5 million in payments from employers and landlords to complainants.

Finally, the report highlighted the new automated charge filing system, and the new automated right to sue system. They're also working on intake filing by telephone, which should result in a lot more charges.

The best way to avoid a charge is prevention. Besides a solid policy and training, communication with employees and an effective system for complaints are the best way to prevent claims to third parties like the DFEH.

DGV

U.S. Supreme Court: Preganancy Discrimination Act Not Retroactive

AT&T's old pension plan used to provide that employees on pregnancy disability leave did not receive the same service credit as employees on leave for other disabilities. Just before Congress enacted the Preganancy Discrimination Act, in 1978, AT&T modified its service credit calculations prospectively, but still calculated pre-PDA service under its pre-PDA rules. Before the PDA, AT&T's calculations were legal under Supreme Court precedent interpreting Title VII.

Four AT&T employees sued AT&T, claiming that perpetuating the calculation of service credit violated the PDA because their pension benefits were reduced as a result of the pre-PDA calculation. The EEOC joined in, as did the Communication Workers' Union. The district court and Ninth Circuit agreed with the Plaintiffs.

However, the Supreme Court, on a 7-2 vote, reversed. The Court's decision, penned by soon-retiring Justice Souter, turned on a number of reasons, the most significant of which are:
- the prior calculation was a "seniority system" exempt from Title VII (pre-PDA);
- the calculation was considered lawful under Supreme Court precent, General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976); therefore, AT&T could not have intentionally discriminated by adopting the old system;
- the PDA was not retroactive;
- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act did not save her claim because the underlying pre-PDA decision was not itself discriminatory.

Justice Stevens joined the majority, but also wrote a concurrence noting he was bound by the pre-PDA Supreme Court opinion, General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), although he dissented in that case.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer dissented. The dissent traced a history of discrimination against pregnancy in the workplace. Acknowleding that the PDA was not retroactive, the dissent in essence argued that because Gilbert was SO wrongly decided, it should not affect the decision in the present case. Here's the essence of the dissent:

The PDA does not require redress for past discrimination. It does not
oblige employers to make women whole for the compensation denied them when,
prior to the Act,they were placed on pregnancy leave, often while still ready, willing, and able to work, and with no secure right to return to their jobs after childbirth.[fn] But the PDA does protect women, from and after April 1979, when the Act became fully effective, against repetition or continuation of pregnancy-based disadvantageous treatment. Congress interred Gilbert more than 30 years ago, but the Court today allows that wrong decision still to hold sway. The plaintiffs (now respondents) in this action will receive, for the rest of their lives, lower pension benefits than colleagues who worked for AT&T no longer than they did. They will experience this discrimination not simply because of the adverse action to which they were subjected pre-PDA. Rather, they are harmed today because AT&T has refused fully to heed the PDA’s core command: Hereafter, for "all employment-related purposes," disadvantageous treatment "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" must cease. 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k) (emphasis added). I would hold that AT&T committed a current violation of Title VII when, post-PDA, it did not totally discontinue reliance
upon a pension calculation premised on the notion that pregnancy-based
classifications display no gender bias.

The case is AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Employee's Obligations re Reasonable Accommodation

Carmine Scotch worked as an instructor for The Art Institute of California - Orange County. He had HIV. The institute's accreditation standards require instructors to have certain certification and education credentials / degrees. They allow some instructors to work towards those credentials after hire.

In 2004, the institute's management prepared for accreditation audits by identifying instructors lacking the education credentials required to maintain accreditation, including Scotch. By the end of 2005, Scotch had still not enrolled in a master's program. The institute even agreed to pay for degrees obtained at a local university.

Scotch received a poor performance review in early 2006. He disputed it, claiming it was retaliation for a leave he took during the previous winter. He also disclosed to HR that he had HIV.

By mid-2006, there was a decline in enrollment. Some instructors were laid off; others were reduced to part-time. Because the institute had more instructors than work, it decided to assign only instructors with masters degrees to upper-level courses. Therefore, Scotch's hours were reduced (along with other instructors'). Ultimately, Scotch resigned.

Scotch sued for refusal to accommodate, disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process and wrongful termination. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment on all causes of action.

Most of the opinion is not new law. The court found that the course load was reduced for legitimate reasons, and that Scotch did not demonstrate pretext. But this opinion is interesting because of the court's analysis of the accommodation claim. Scotch argued that he should have been assigned a full course load despite his failure to achieve the masters degree as a reasonable accommodation. The court found:

His proposed accommodation is not reasonable under the definition we have adopted because it is not a “modification or adjustment to the workplace” necessary to enable him to perform the essential functions of his position. Unlike the employee in Jensen, Scotch was not requesting assignment from a position he could not manage to one he could. Instead, Scotch explained the limitations created by his disability were that he needed to avoid stress and he could not pursue a master‟s degree while teaching full time and fulfilling other professional development requirements—limitations addressed by AIC‟s accommodation. Scotch‟s request of priority in assignment of lower division courses does not accommodate those limitations and was unnecessary to enable him to perform the essential functions of his position.

The opinion also addresses the "interactive process." The court found that the institute did not initiate a meeting before reducing the hours and that, perhaps, a jury would find that it should have. However, the court also found that the failure to have the meeting did not require a trial. That is because the employee must identify a potential accommodation that would have been effective to recover on the cause of action:

To prevail on a claim under section 12940, subdivision (n) for failure to engage in the interactive process, an employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred. An employee cannot necessarily be expected to identify and request all possible accommodations during the interactive process itself because "„"[e]mployees do not have at their disposal the extensive information concerning possible alternative positions or possible accommodations which employers have. . . ."‟" (Wysinger, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 425.) However . . . once the parties have engaged in the litigation process, to prevail, the employee must be able to identify an available accommodation the interactive process should have produced: "Section 12940[, subdivision ](n), which requires proof of failure to engage in the interactive process, is the appropriate cause of action where the employee is unable to identify a specific, available reasonable accommodation while in the workplace and the employer fails to engage in a good faith interactive process to help identify one, but the employee is
able to identify a specific, available reasonable accommodation through the litigation process." (Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 984.)

The case is Scotch v. Art Inst. of Orange Cty. and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court to Review Section 203 Waiting Time Penalties

The statute of limitations for a penalty is usually one year under California law. But, Labor Code Section 203 says that the statute of limitations for "waiting time penalties" is the same as the limitations period for the underlying wage claim. So, if the underlying wage claim is three years (such as unpaid overtime), then the statute of limitations for late payment of those wages at termination is also three years.

But, what happens if the underlying wages are paid already and an employee just wants to recover penalties in a civil lawsuit? There IS no underlying claim for wages in that case. So, the court of appeal reasoned in Pineda v. Bank of Am., that the one-year statute of limitations should apply in cases where there is no accompanying claim for unpaid wages.

The court in Pineda also clarified that the unfair competition law's four year statute does not apply to waiting time penalties, since the UCL ordinarily only applies to "restitution" of the plaintiff's property, and waiting time penalties are not the employee's property.

The California Supreme Court just accepted review of Pineda on both issues discussed above. The docket is here. We posted about the court of appeal's opinion here.

Ninth Circuit Asks CA Supremes for Guidance on Wage and Hour

The Ninth Circuit has before it three cases involving pharmaceutical sales representatives. These folks visit with doctors and give them information on medications. The Ninth Circuit wants to know if these employees count as "outside salespersons" under California law. So, they asked the California Supreme Court for an opinion:

1. The Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders 1-2001 and 4-2001 define “outside salesperson” to mean “any person, 18 years of age or over, who customarily and regularly works more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of facilities.” 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11010, subd. 2(J); 11040, subd. 2(M). Does a pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) qualify as an “outside salesperson” under this definition, if the PSR spends more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business and personally interacts with doctors and hospitals on behalf of drug companies for the purpose of increasing individual doctors’ prescriptions of specific drugs?

If the sales representatives don't qualify as outside salespersons, because they don't take orders or actually sell the medications, the court wants to know if they qualify as "administrative" employees:

2. In the alternative, Wage Order 4-2001 defines a person employed in an
administrative capacity as a person whose duties and responsibilities involve (among other things) “[t]he performance of office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of his/her employer or his employer’s customers” and “[w]ho customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 11040, subd. 1(A)(2)(a)(I), 1(A)(2)(b). Is a PSR, as described above, involved in duties and responsibilities that meet these requirements

The Ninth Circuit seeks guidance on the administrative test because California case law is sparse on what it means to "exercise discretion and independent judgment" for the administrative exemption, and whether the PSRs are involved in "office or non-manual work directly related ot management policies or general business operations" of Bayer's customers. The court appears to believe that California law on outside salespersons differs from the federal test under the FLSA such that reliance on FLSA cases would be of "limited" assistance.

The Supreme Court does not have to answer the questions. If the Court chooses not to, then the case will return to the Ninth Circuit for a prediction on how the Supreme Court would rule. Otherwise, this case could provide needed guidance in this area of wage and hour law.

The case is D'Este v. Bayer Corporation and the opinion/request for answers is here.

California Supreme Court Takes Tips

(Or at least they accept tip pooling cases for review. ) What's tip pooling? We blogged about it here and wrote an article here. Yeah, we're on it.

Who knew tip pooling was the new meal break? There have been about four recent appellate decisions on tip pools in recent months. The Supreme Court decided to have its say, accepting review in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens. We'll see if they grant and hold the rest of them or leave one on the books for guidance to the bar while the Lu review is pending.

DGV

Court of Appeal: Release Bars Employee's Class Action

Watkins and Brown sued Wachovia Bank for mis-classification as exempt, as well as for individual wrongful termination and wage claims. There was a lot of litigation over arbitration, discovery and the like.

Brown ultimately settled her claims and signed a release, which covered all claims, including disputed claims for overtime. The trial court granted summary judgment against her, holding she no longer could participate in the class action. On the same day, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the wage claims.

Watkins settled her claims and signed a release as well. However, she purported to reserve the right to press any "class claims," and to receive an enhanced payment if the class claims were successful. She also reserved the right to appeal the denial of class certification.

On appeal, Brown argued that her release did not encompass claims for unpaid wages and that she was free to have signed the general release, but still maintain her wage claim. Relying on the recent decision in Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, covered here, the court of appeal held that a release may properly include disputed claims for wages.

Then, the court turned to Watkins. The court held that Watkins could not preserve her right to appeal since she had signed a general release. Because parties cannot confer appellate jurisdiction and a court of appeal will not issue an opinion about a moot claim, the court dismissed the appeal. That left no appeal of the denial of class certification and, maybe, some annoyed absent class members?

The court of appeal was careful to distinguish what are called "pick off" cases. In those cases, the defendant pays a class representative all that s/he claims is due and then seeks dismissal of the action against that plaintiff. The plaintiff can stay in the case if s/he has an adequate economic interest in remaining in the case, such as the interest in attorneys' fees. But the court squarely held that a plaintiff accepting a voluntary settlement of all claims is not picked off and, therefore, not entitled to maintain a class action:

We believe that it is illogical to import the law governing "pick off" cases into the context of a voluntary settlement. Often, a plaintiff brings an action as a class action precisely because the attorney‟s fees involved in bringing the action individually would exceed the value of the any judgment the plaintiff could obtain individually. (Roper, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 338, fn. 9.) In such a situation, a "pick off" settlement, which gives the plaintiff only the relatively small amount sought as damages, may be inadequate to cover the substantial attorney‟s fees incurred in pursuing the litigation. Thus, the plaintiff who has been involuntarily picked off has not obtained satisfactory
relief, and is therefore permitted to continue pursuing the class litigation
until complete relief is received. This conclusion is supported by policy considerations which seek to prevent a defendant from avoiding class liability by picking off individual plaintiffs.

This is to be distinguished from the case of a voluntarily settling plaintiff. In such a case, the plaintiff has accepted an amount the plaintiff believes is sufficient to make the plaintiff whole. By voluntarily settling, the plaintiff has agreed to accept the offered sum in full satisfaction of the plaintiff‟s claim against the defendant. There are no public policy interests implicated by a settlement voluntarily accepted.

* * *

Applied to this case, it is apparent that Watkins‟s appeal must be dismissed. She has voluntarily released her wage claim against Wachovia in exchange for a $51,000 payment. While she attempted to reserve her right to pursue her "class claim," her "class claim" is simply a procedural device by which she pursued her substantive claim for overtime wages. Having settled her substantive claim, the class claim disappears, and her appeal of the denial of class certification must be dismissed. Watkins cannot salvage her right to appeal by asserting an economic interest in class certification in terms of a right to shift her attorney‟s fees to the class, if successful. If the class obtains a judgment or settlement, such recovery would belong to the class. Having voluntarily settled, she is, by her own choice, no longer a member of the class and cannot share in any such recovery.

The opinion is Watkins v. Wachovia Corporation and the opinion is here.

Alert the Media! Arbitration Agreement Enforced

As stated by the Court of Appeal,

The arbitration provision, contained in a separate paragraph initialed by Roman, provided, "I hereby agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application. I further agree, in the event that I am hired by the company, that all disputes that cannot be resolved by informal internal resolution[1] which might arise out of my employment with the company, whether during or after that employment, will be submitted to binding arbitration. I agree that such arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This application contains the entire agreement between the parties with regard to dispute resolution, and there are no other agreements as to dispute resolution, either oral or written."

So, the first thing that jumps to mind is that a court would say it wasn't "mutual," in that it does not say that the Company will submit all disputes to arbitration. Forgive me my cynicism, but the courts seem to find any way possible to deny enforcement of these puppies.

Not this time. The court determined that there was no one-sidedness and that both parties would have to arbitrate all claims. The court had an interesting discussion of canons of construction of contracts contained in the Civil Code supporting enforceability.

The plaintiff also argued that the employer's propounding some paper discovery and even filing a motion to compel the plaintiff's deposition was a waiver. But no:

Although Roman incurred litigation expenses in serving and filing objections to
discovery requests and opposing the demurrer and motion to compel her deposition, those expenses are insufficient, by themselves, to support a finding of waiver: "[W]aiver does not occur by mere participation in litigation"‟ if there has been no judicial litigation of the merits of arbitrable issues" and no prejudice. (Saint Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1203.) "Because merely participating in litigation, by itself, does not result in a waiver, courts will not find prejudice where the party opposing arbitration shows only that it incurred court costs and legal expenses." (Ibid.; see also Groom v. Health Net (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1197 [expense of responding to motions or other preliminary pleadings is not type of prejudice that bars later petition to compel arbitration].) The trial court did not err in impliedly rejecting Roman‟s waiver argument.

So, there you have it, an enforceable arbitration agreement. Take a picture. The case is Roman v. Superior Court (Flo-Kem), and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: No Privacy on Myspace

Myspace, Facebook, Linkedin, etc. are fertile sources of information about employees and job applicants. The phenomenon of otherwise private individuals airing out their grievances, sharing personal information, etc. continues unabated. The phenomenon of the same individuals' shock and surprise that people actually read their stuff and hold it against them continues as well.

In a non-employment matter, the Court of Appeal addressed whether an essay on myspace was private such that republishing it in a newspaper without the author's permission constituted an invasion of privacy. Umm no.

Moreno was from the small town of Coalinga. After she left town, she wrote an essay about her disdain for her hometown. She neglected to consider that folks who remained in Coalinga might get offended. Her principal forwarded the posting to the local newspaper, which published it as a Letter to the Editor. And of course, although Moreno's last name is not on her myspace page, the principal helpfully supplied it.

Now Moreno also forgot that her family still lived in Coalinga, and operated a small business there. The fans of Coalinga were miffed by Moreno's letter, and drove the family out of business and out of town. She chose to sue the newspaper and principal rather than herself. No word whether her family sued her.

The Court of Appeal, upholding the trial court, held that when you post on myspace, it's not "private." As such there is no invasion of "privacy" when you use the posted information or disclose it to others. Without a private fact, there is no tort of invasion of privacy.

Interestingly, the Court of Appeal also held, albeit in an unpublished portion of the decision, that Ms. Moreno could proceed against the defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress, possibly because of the fact that the principal intentionally supplied the posting to the newspaper out of spite? No clue. Simply reading the information and relying on it on the job may or may not supply the requisite "outrageous conduct" required for IIED. My bet is" not."

So, at least based on this case, if you put your private information out on the INtRaw3Bs, your employer is not invading your privacy by reading it. The case is Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel and the opinion is here.

DGV

Another I-9 Reminder

All of you well-educated, information-saturated folks know the new I-9 Form is effective 4/3, right? OK, then.

This one has the 6/30/09 expiration date, just like the old one. But it also has the critical 2/2/09 revision date (visible in the lower right-hand corner of the form.) Looks like you'll have to replace these new forms, too. (The expiration date is near! Alert the media!) So, you can look forward to still more newsletters and blogs nagging you about this critical issue facing employers. If you need one of these new forms, find it here.

U.S. Supreme Court: Union May Agree to Arbitration of Age Discrimination Claims

In New York City, there is a multi-employer association of building management that negotiates with a large union over building workers' wages, hours and other terms of employment. The union contract provided for arbitration of discrimination claims as follows:

NO DISCRIMINATION. There shall be no discrimination against any present or
future employee by reason of race, creed, color, age, disability, national origin, sex, union membership, or any other characteristic protected by law, including, but not limited to,claims made pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Code, . . . or any other similar laws, rules, or regulations. All such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures (Articles V and VI) as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.Arbitrators shall apply appropriate law in rendering decisions based upon claims of discrimination.

So, this is a clear agreement to arbitrate. But can a union agree with an employer that individuals' claims must be arbitrated, even though the individuals have not personally agreed to do so?

Yep. The Court decided, 5-4, that the arbitration clause was fully enforceable. To get there, the majority decided two issues. First, the Court noted that unions and employers have broad discretion to agree on terms to be included in collective bargaining agreements. Unions are the employees' designated bargaining representatives and may bargain away rights (such as to sue in lieu of arbitration) in exchange for other concessions by management.

As a result, the only way the above contractual provision could be invalid was if the ADEA prohibited mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims. But the Court already had decided that the ADEA contains nothing precluding mandatory arbitration. Hence, the Court upheld the language in the CBA:

Examination of the two federal statutes at issue in this case, therefore, yields a straightforward answer to the question presented: The NLRA provided the Union and the RAB with statutory authority to collectively bargain for arbitration of workplace discrimination claims, and Congress did not terminate that authority with respect to federal age-discrimination claims in the ADEA. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for the Court to strike down the arbitration clause in this CBA, which was freely negotiated by the Union and the RAB, and which clearly and unmistakably requires respondents to arbitrate the age discrimination claims at issue in this appeal.

The Court also refused to rule that mandatory arbitration was a waiver of substantive rights without the employees' consent. The Court made clear it does not consider arbitration in lieu of court to be a substantive change, but rather merely a change of forum.

Four justices dissented in two opinions, arguing that prior precedent precluded the majority's result. Justice Souter admitted the majority's conclusion "at least could be considered" if it weren't for precedent that, in the dissent's view, should control the question.

Anyway, this is all very interesting to students of stare decisis and Supreme Court watchers. But for you, gentle reader, all that matters is that Union contracts can require mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims, if the clause in the contract is "clear and unmistakable."

What also matters is that Congress is moving to ban arbitration of employment discrimination lawsuits, this time with a clear Democratic majority and a Democratic president. So, the odds of this case surviving Congressional action are much lower than they were a few years ago.

The opinion is 14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Idaho Law Re Union Political Activities Checkoff

I know I'm posting late on this, but I have a strong need to have full coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's employment law opinions, even the ERISA cases. I hope I didn't inconvenience my devoted followers, and the copycats who don't read the advance sheets themselves .... (Hi!)

This one is a labor / First Amendment crossover. A union claimed Idaho law, prohibiting deductions from employees' pay for union political action funds, is unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. The Court disagreed and upheld Idaho law.

Here's the issue and the Court's resolution, as framed by the Court itself:

Under Idaho law, a public employee may elect to have a portion of his wages
deducted by his employer and remitted to his union to pay union dues. He may not, however, choose to have an amount deducted and remitted to the union’s political action committee, because Idaho law prohibits payroll deductions for political activities. A group of unions representing Idaho public employees challenged this limitation. They conceded that the limitation was valid as applied at the state level, but argued that it violated their First Amendment rights when applied to county, municipal, school district, and other local public employers.

We do not agree. The First Amendment prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech”; it does not confer an affirmative right to use government payroll mechanisms for the purpose of obtaining funds for expression. Idaho’s law does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee checkoffs for political activities. Such a decision is reasonable in light of the State’s interest in avoiding the appearance that carrying out the public’s business is tainted by partisan political activity. That interest extends to government at the local as well as state level, and nothing in the First Amendment prevents a State from determining that its political subdivisions may not provide payroll deductions for political activities.

So, there you have it. The case is Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn. and the opinion is here.

Another Court of Appeal Decision on Tip Pooling

Did lawyers file a whole bunch of class actions on tip pooling at about the same time a year or two ago? Apparently so. Several judicial opinions have now emerged. They're not good for the plaintiffs.

We recently posted about Budrow v. Dave & Buster's here. There, the court decided that a restaurant's requirement that cocktail waitrons tip out a bartender was lawful.
Now, in Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc. opinion here, the court of appeal reached the same conclusion, albeit with a slightly different formulation. Tip pooling, the court held, is fine when the tips are doled out to employees in the "chain of service." It is still forbidden to involve managers / supervisors in tip pools. But the bussers, bar backs, and hosts can breathe again.

Another Arbitration Agreement Bites the Crust

er... Dust, too.

Western Pizza owns some Domino's franchises. Their arbitration agreement had a class action waiver (illegal). It also had an arbitration selection procedure specifying a certain "dispute resolution service" that had only one arbitrator employed. So, that kind of took the surprise out of who would conduct the arbitration. The court struck down the arbitration agreement as unconscionable. Not a surprise given the current state of arbitration case law.

Interestingly, though, the court of appeal held that the company's "small claims" procedure, permitting relaxed discovery, evidence, and hearing procedures for claims worth less than $50,000. The court noted that such things are normal in arbitration anyway. Also, the court did not find unconscionable the agreement's silence on discovery procedures and no requirement of a written award, holding these were "implied" in the agreement under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83.

The case is Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Holds Statements Regarding Termination Were Not Defamatory "Per Se"

Slander per se means that a false statement is actionable without proof of actual damages. In California, the law defines the types of slander that count as "per se," which include a statement that:

[¶] 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; [¶] 2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; [¶] 3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; [¶] 4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity . . .

Mike Regalia was a senior executive. When he was fired, the senior management said that he demanded a "finders fee" or "commission" on a sale without a justification, and that people would not work for him and had threatened to leave. He sued for, among other things, defamation. A jury decided he had been slandered and awarded him $750,000 for damage to his reputation without proof of actual economic loss.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It is the court's job to decide if a statement is slanderous "per se" or if proof of damages is required (called slander per quod). Here's the court's analysis:

A person can make a claim for money that is rejected as not being justified, and still not be viewed as having committed an act that reflects negatively on that person. Thus a statement about such a claim does not necessarily directly injure him in his profession, trade or business (Correia v. Santos, supra, 191 Cal.App.2d at p. 852) so as to fit within subdivision (3) of Civil Code section 46. (See Gang v. Hughes (9th Cir. 1954) 218 F.2d 432 [alleged statements that a plaintiff‟s attorney refused to settle a case until he was paid and that he was paid because he demanded immediate payment not slander or libel per se].) Likewise, the statement that Regalia was fired because other employees would not work for him and would leave if he remained employed does not, on its face, clearly fall within subdivision (3) of Civil Code section 46. That one or more employees do not want to work for someone, without more, again, does not necessarily reflect adversely on the person. The employee or employees might not want to work for a person because of the person‟s work ethic or rectitude, or legitimate business policies.

Managers have the right to explain to employees why they have discharged someone. There are good business reasons to do so, such as to inform employees what performance standards govern employment. If statements such as the above were actionable as slander per se, no employer would ever explain why someone was no longer employed unless it wished to risk liability without proof of damages. Employees, on the other hand, are protected from false statements if they are actually injured. So, the court struck a reasonable balance here it seems to me.

This case, however, reinforces the need to be factual when explaining someone's departure. Had they called the ex-employee a "thief" or an "incompetent" manager, that might have been a different story. And neutral references are still the safest policy.

The case is The Nethercutt Collection v. Regalia and the opinion is here.

New COBRA Notices Available

Employers covered by COBRA have to comply with the new COBRA requirements included in the "ARRA" stimulus bill. We wrote an article about this here, and we posted here.

The US Department of Labor has issued model notices to aid compliance. Those are here.

DGV

California FEHC Compares ADA, ADAAA and FEHA

The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission issued a handy chart comparing the original Americans with Disabilities Act, the 2008 amendments (ADAAA), and the Fair Employment and Housing Act's coverage of individuals with disabilities. Here is the chart.

California FEHC Compares New FMLA Regulations with CFRA/PDL

The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission issued a helpful comparison chart covering the new FMLA regulations and their effect on California's Family Rights Act and Pregnancy Disability Leave law. Here it is.

Court of Appeal Clarifies California's Tip Pooling Law

If you have worked in a restaurant, then you know. Most restaurants require waitrons (servers) to "tip out" busboys, bartenders, runners, hosts, and/or others involved in the chain of service. If you gain the reputation for stiffing the busboy, bartender, etc. (under-tipping), you will be punished by no water, wrong drink orders, forgotten bread for your table, etc. So, smart wait staff tips out correctly.
In California, though, there is a statute addressing the practice of "tip pooling." The primary purpose of the law is to prevent management from taking a dip into the tip pool, as it were.
Some folks believe that tips by law are retained only by the server who collects it, or who engages in "direct table service."
The Court of Appeal put that interpretation to rest in Budrow v. Dave and Buster's. There, a cocktail waiter objected to tipping out the bartender. No wonder he lasted a month, or three months as he argued.
Anyway, the opinion is here. I'll bet you some side work that the Justices themselves or the court staff pulled a few doubles in their day.

GINA Regulations Coming

The EEOC has proposed regulations implementing and interpreting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). The draft covers definitions of terms used in the law, what constitutes discrimination, how to protect genetic information in employers' possession, and MORE!

The EEOC is inviting the public to comment on the proposed regulations. If you want to access through the EEOC's own website, it's not posted as of this writing. But it will appear here. As of now, you can view the document here.

Thanks to Ross Runkel for reporting this before it happened.

DGV

Court of Appeal Upholds Release of Overtime Claims

Labor Code section 206.5 invalidates releases of wage claims. But when there is a bona fide dispute over whether wages are due, releases are valid. That's what the court of appeal held in Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix.

This was an overtime class action that went to mediation but did not settle. The employer did an "end run" and settled out about 200 employees with individual releases. Employees challenged the validity of the releases under Labor Code section 206.5. But the court of appeal, agreeing with the trial court, held:

The releases here settled a dispute over whether Stix had violated wage and hour laws in the past; they did not purport to exonerate it from future violations. Neither did the releases condition the payment of wages concededly due on their executions. The trial court correctly found the releases barred the Chindarah plaintiffs from proceeding with the lawsuit against Stix.

If this case is not taken up by the Supreme Court for review, it will clarify a longstanding unresolved issue in California law regarding when settlements of wage claims will be enforced.
Employers will be able to settle claims involving uncertain liability, such as for certain meal period claims, or misclassification issues when the factual issues are in dispute.

Read the opinion here.

California Supreme Court Addresses State Employees' Whistleblower Protections

Before a state employee can bring suit under the California Whistleblower law, he or she must seek relief before the State Personnel Board. When the SPB issues "findings," or even when the SPB fails to do so in the time allowed,the law says that the employee may sue in Superior Court. But the court of appeal held that when, as in the present case, an employee receives adverse findings from the SPB, the employee must seek to overturn those findings before going to court.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision, 7-0. The high court held that an employee may proceed to court when the SPB issues or fails to issue findings within the prescribed time, and the employee need not seek a writ or a hearing before an administrative law judge first.

The case is State Bd. of Chiropractic v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

California Amends Alternative Workweek Law

As part of California's recent budget compromise, the Legislature made welcome revisions / clarifications to the law governing "alternative workweek arrangements." These arrangements are the authorized exemptions to "daily overtime" law.

The bill, AB 5, amends Labor Code section 511. Presumably, the DLSE will revise its manual and the IWC will issue revised wage orders.

First, the law defines what counts as a "work unit" for having the vote for the alternative workweek arrangement:

For purposes of this section, “work unit” includes a division, a department, a job classification, a shift, a separate physical location, or a recognized subdivision thereof. A work unit may consist of an individual employee as long as the criteria for an identifiable work unit in this section is met.

The new law also expressly allows employers to give employees the right to vote on a "menu of options" that includes not only "alternative workweek" schedules (such as 4/10 hour days) but also an eight hour per day option. That will likely result in a lot more votes for passage.

The law also permits employees to move from one option to another weekly. That will give employees the option of working 4/10 one week and then 5/8 the next week if the employer consents.

Here is the statute.

DGV

President Obama Issues Pro-Labor Executive Order No. 4

The President signed a new executive order authorizing "project labor agreements" in certain "large scale" federal construction contracts. The order, signed Feb. 6, 2009, takes effect immediately. Basically, the order authorizes contracting agencies to require private-sector contractors to sign on to a union contract for the life of the project:

The term "project labor agreement" as used in this order means a pre-hire
collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f).

The order applies only to construction projects worth more than $25 million. You can view it here.

Did You Read the "Stimulus" Bill?

What employment law changes are included in the stimulus bill? Law firms are starting to pick over the new law, signed on February 17, 2009.

A number of employment law firms' newsletters report there is a big change to COBRA. To summarize, under the new law, certain employees fired / laid off employees from September 2008 until December 2009 will pay a discounted COBRA premium, which employers apparently will recover as a tax credit. The provision is available only to individuals earning less than $125,000 and married couples with incomes under $250,000. So, that will be easy for employers to administer. Not. I smell full employment for benefits administrators. See? Job creation!

What else is in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" to stimulate employers? We'll find out in the coming days. If you can't wait, or you want to help your representative or Senator understand what s/he voted for, you can read the entire new law here. Just hit "control-F" and search for "COBRA" or "Title III," addressing the COBRA premium discount.

DGV

Ninth Circuit Withdraws "Flyover" Wage and Hour Case

We posted about Sullivan v. Oracle here, and blew a weekend on an article (you don't have to read) here. That's the case where the court of appeals held that an out of state resident is covered by California's wage and hour laws even when he or she works only briefly in California.

The Ninth Circuit decided to withdraw the opinion, here. Instead, the court certified three questions to the California Supreme Court:

First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

Second, does § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?

Third, does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA

So, the California Supreme Court, if it accepts the Ninth Circuit's invitation, will give its input and then the Ninth Circuit presumably will re-issue its opinion with the benefit of California's high court's analysis. Stay tuned.

Ninth Circuit Holds Type 2 Diabetic Was Qualified Individual

The Ninth Circuit avoided deciding whether the ADAAA amendments to the ADA are retroactive by holding that a type-2 diabetic had a disability and was a qualified individual under the original ADA.

Larry Rohr was a welder metallurgy specialist for Salt River Project Ag. Improvement and Power District, a political subdivision of the Arizona state government. He developed type-2 diabetes. His doctors imposed a number of restrictions on his diet and prescribed medication. The timing and management of his blood sugar testing, eating, and administration of medication resulted in a number of restrictions. Additionally, because of his medical condition, he was susceptible to a number of symptoms.

At times, Rohr was assigned to work in the field and out of town trips. His doctors, and the company's imposed a number of restrictions on his work, which included extended travel. Ultimately, the company concluded he could not perform his essential job functions and gave him the opportunity to transfer to another job or take early retirement. He sued for disability discrimination under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment, holding he was not an individual with a "disability" and that he was not "qualified"

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. The opinion discusses at length the limitations on Rohr's ability to eat, including scheduling his meals, eating at certain times, and adjusting medication for food, testing and exercise. The court said not all diabetics are substantially limited, but that Rohr had a number of challenges that seem common to many with the condition. So, particularly under the new ADAAA amendments, it will be nearly impossible to argue diabetes is not a disability after this opinion.

The court then tackled whether Rohr was "qualified" in that he could perform his essential job functions with or without accommodation. Salt River argued Rohr could not pass a respirator test per OSHA standards. The court found a triable issue of fact because: the test was not required by OSHA, Salt River did not consider other testing methods, and the use of a respirator may not have been "necessary" to the job.

The court rather summarily found the parties' disputed whether aspects of Rohr's job were "essential" including the need to travel extensively.

The court also decided that the ADAAA amendments would have lent further support to the conclusion that summary judgment should be reversed. However, the court declined to rule that the amendments applied to Rohr's case, which was filed long before the president signed the 2008 amendments into law. The court's comments on the ADAAA, all dicta, portend tough sledding for employers seeking to challenge whether someone has a "disability" under the new framework.

The deicsion is Rohr v. Salt River Project and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Dukes v. Walmart

Almost two years ago, the Ninth Circuit upheld class certification in one of the largest employment class actions ever: Dukes v. Walmart. The complaint alleges company-wide sex discrimination in promotions and other job decisions. We posted on the initial order here.

The Ninth Circuit has now agreed to hear the case "en banc," meaning by a panel of 15 judges rather than three. The original opinion's panel no longer is citable. It probably will be some time until the en banc decision comes out, which could provide significant guidance on class certification in the federal courts within the Ninth Circuit.

California Supreme Court: Public Employee May Be Disciplined for Refusing to Cooperate in Investigation

The California Supreme Court held that a deputy public defender was properly discharged when he refused to answer questions during an internal investigation. He argued that he could not be compelled to answer because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds they might incriminate him.

But the investigator, a supervisor attorney at the public defender's office, had informed him that his cooperation in the investigation would not be used against him in criminal proceedings. Was his refusal to testify protected conduct? The court unanimously said "no":

a public employee may be compelled, by threat of job discipline, to answer questions about the employee’s job performance, so long as the employee is not required, on pain of dismissal, to waive the constitutional protection against criminal use of those answers. Here, plaintiff was not ordered to choose between his constitutional rights and his job. On the contrary, he was truthfully told that, in fact, no criminal use could be made of any answers he gave under compulsion by the employer. In the context of a noncriminal public employment investigation, the employer was not further required to seek, obtain, and confer a formal guarantee of immunity before requiring its employee to answer questions related to that investigation.

The case is Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara and the opinion is here.

President Obama Issues Three Pro-Labor Executive Orders

The President issued three "executive orders" affecting certain federal contractors:

1. Requires contractors to post a poster explaining employees' rights to join or not join unions. View here.

2. Denies federal funds to pay for contractors' activities related to "persuading" employees to join or not join unions. View here.

3. Requires contractors to retain predecessor companies' qualified employees rather than laying them off and hiring their own workers. View here.

I-9 Form Changes

The USCIS has delayed implementation of a new I-9 form containing new employment eligibility documentation requirements. The January 30, 2009 announcement is here. Under the current schedule, a new I-9 form will be required on April 3, 2009. The Jan. 30 order extends the comment period for proposed regulations issued in November 2008.
You can see the new proposed regulations and the sample new I-9 form and instructions here.

Starbucks CEO Salary Cut: Spot the Issue

I saw a news item in the WSJ about the Starbucks CEO's announcement that he's cutting his own salary from $1.2 million to $10,000 per year. Great PR, right? But, let's play "spot the wage and hour issue."

Unless I'm missing something, and I've been accused of missing many things,* Mr. Schultz transformed himself into a non-exempt CEO of a publicly traded corporation! (Yes, the salary is too low to qualify him as exempt under federal law).

I got a laugh out of this, because I'm an idiot. But wouldn't they vet this issue with their employment lawyers?

This is probably not a big deal, since Mr. Schultz is likely not going to sue his own company to recover the overtime wages he will be due once he fails the exempt test. Howard...call me.

*If there is some other aspect of his compensation that qualifies him for the salary test that was not reported in the article, please accept my apologies o SBUX legal team.

Lily Ledbetter "Fair Pay" Act

Ledbetter v. Goodyear was one of those Supreme Court decisions that galvanized politicians, activists, etc. and became a proxy for complaints about "conservative" judges. We posted about that case here. We wrote an article about it here.

The opinion simply held that Title VII discrimination claims apply what's called a "statute of limitations." The "statute of limitations" protects employers from old claims. Claims that cannot be defended because records are gone, witnesses are dead or moved away, etc. It also protects defendants when plaintiffs "sit on their rights" and wait too long to prosecute their claims. By the way, Title VII indeed contains a statute of limitations. The dispute was over how it was applied.

Ledbetter had an Area Manager job with Goodyear for almost 20 years. Over a period of 15 years, her pay slipped as compared with other males. She finally sued for sex discrimination in her compensation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The court held that the claims were time barred, because the allegedly discriminatory decisions to set her compensation were made outside the limitations period. But Ledbetter argued that every time she was paid, it was a new discriminatory act. As if the payroll coordinator knew how her wages were set. Anyway, the Court decided that her claims were time barred because none of the discriminatory decisions occurred within the 300 day limitations period that applies.

The decision hardly broke new ground. But it created a political firestorm, maybe because there was a presidential election campaign going on? Nah. But - but - Ms. Ledbetter spoke at one of the national party political conventions this year. Shhh.

Anyway, new administration, new laws. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will make all compensation-based discrimination claims timely as long as one paycheck issued under the discriminatory practice falls within the limitations period. Ripple effects? Settlements, documentation and review of compensation decisions, pay equity studies.... the mind boggles.

Here's the text of the Act, which signed on 1/29/09. Oh its effective date? May 26, 2007 - the day the Supreme Court issued its decision. So, it is retro, at least as to pending cases.

Anyway, this will help you take your mind off Ms. Ledbetter and her new law: EFCA can't be far behind!

Greg

Court of Appeal Applies Anti-SLAPP Law to EDD Report

Dible worked for the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic as a counselor. The clinic terminated her employment for performance reasons. The clinic contested her unemployment claim. Ms. Dible sued for defamation and other claims. However, after some litigation, the clinic moved the court under the anti-SLAPP statute to dismiss the claim. Why? Because the clinic exercised its First Amendment rights to make a report in an official proceeding. The Court of Appeal agreed that the anti-SLAPP statute barred her claim. Dible then argued that she should be able to assert a claim for "defamation by compelled self-publication," because the clinic should have known Dible would have to re-publish to third parties the clinic's assertions regarding her performance.

The Court of Appeal disagreed:

Here we are clearly being asked to create a wider exception for claimants who have not republished where it is foreseeable that they might do so in the future. We decline to do so. Such a rule would require courts to engage in considerable speculation as to future conduct and lead to untenable attempts to speculate on future damage. A court could not, for instance, account for the possibility that after a plaintiff has received an award for damages in the form of lost future wages, he or she might republish while seeking a job and be given the job, thus not be damaged, nonetheless.

Since publication or republication to a third person is necessary to establish the cause of action of defamation, we conclude that plaintiff cannot establish a probability of success upon her defamation claim. The motion pursuant to section 425.16 was therefore properly granted.

The case is Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court: Retaliation Provisions Cover Investigation Witness

Vicky Crawford worked for the Metropolitan school district of Nashville and Davidson County, TN. The agency was conducing an investigation into a harassment complaint made against an employee, who happened to be the employee relations director.

The investigator from the human resources department asked Crawford whether she had experienced inappropriate behavior by the director. She disclosed she had witnessed certain conduct. The district later fired Crawford, allegedly for embezzlement. She sued for retaliation.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Crawford's participation in the investigation fell within Title VII's anti-retaliation protections. The court unanimously ruled that "opposition" includes providing information during an investigation. The lower courts and the employer argued that it would require something more affirmative - such as making a complaint.

The case is CRAWFORD v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE and the opinion is here.

Our Little Blog Scores a "TOP" Legal Blogs Mention

We're no. 1! Ok, I'm joking. We're NOT no. 1. No, we're not no. 101 either. But we did score in the top 300 law blogs as measured by rating service Avvo.

And that makes us proud. The kind of pride you feel when someone who has the same first name as you is arrested for pet endangerment. Yes, the crawl-under-your-desk sort of feeling that your humble correspondent has experienced since, oh, fifth grade or so. I know, it's time to up the meds.

Anyway, if you want to find some popular blogs to monitor, here's the list with links to all the heavy hitters. See, you thought this post was going to be a self-indulgent waste of time, didn't you?

Greg

EFCA Debate and Article

So, I wrote this column on the Employee Free Choice (sic) Act or EFCA if you haven't seen it already. Someone must have read it, because I was invited to debate EFCA on the radio on Friday, January 23, 2009 at 7:00 a.m. Roy Ulrich, a lawyer and the host of "Morning Review" on KPFK-FM in LA, hosted the forum.

I was up against a professor from my alma mater. I think she would rescind my diploma if it were up to her.

The interesting aspect of the debate is the opinion my opponent offered about the motivation behind this law. It's not about expanding union representation at the workplace for the sake of workers, etc. It's about the labor "movement." The more members the unions get, the more money they earn. The more money they earn, the more they can lobby politicians and affect election outcomes. Their hope is to elect politicians who will change world TRADE POLICY and become anti-"globalization." Now, *I'm* not saying that's what EFCA is really about. Rather, "that's what she said."

Anyway, if you want to hear my radio stylings, you may do so here. The King of all Media has nothing to worry about. (And "baba booey" to you all.)

DGV

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Unions to Charge Nonmembers Service Fees

An employee member of a collective bargaining unit may choose not to be a member of the union that represents the unit. However, under First Amendment jurisprudence, the union may charge the non-member a "service fee" for bargaining services. But the union must carve out the portion of dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining (such as political activity). In Locke v. Karass, the Court addressed whether the union could include the costs associated with litigation directed by the national union. The Court in a unanimous opinion held that such expenses may be charged as part of the service fee when:

(1) the subject matter of the (extra-local) litigation is of a kind that would be
chargeable if the litigation were local, e.g., litigation appropriately related to collective bargaining rather than political activities, and (2) the charge is reciprocal in nature, i.e., the contributing local reasonably expects other locals to contribute similarly to the national’s resources used for costs of similar litigation on behalf of the contributing local if and when it takes place.

Wake up. This is important stuff. The case is Locke v. Karass and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Waiting Time Penalties Are...Penalties

The Court of Appeal in Pineda v. Bank of America held that "waiting time" penalties imposed under Lab. Code Section 203 are not a form of "wages" or property of the plaintiff. They are indeed penalties, unlike meal period penal- er - premiums. So, the court found, the plaintiffs could not seek waiting time penalties under the unfair competition law, Bus. Prof. Code section 17200. This is important because section 17200 carries with it a four-year statute of limitations.
A year or so ago, a superior court in another case made the extraordinary determination that waiting time penalties are wages, not penalties, and were recoverable under the UCL. So much for that argument.
The opinion in Pineda is here.

Bye Bye Brinkley

The California Supreme Court granted review in Brinkley v. Public Storage, here. We posted about Brinkley, a very employer-friendly meal and rest period decision, here. Yes, yes, I know. We predicted the Supreme Court would grant review in our earlier post. No wonder we rank among the top 700,000 blogs.

Greg

5th Circuit Awards Attorney's Fees Against EEOC

The federal and California courts apply the same standards in awarding attorney's fees in discrimination cases. So, the recent case of EEOC v. Agro Distribution LLC (opinion: here) is relevant to awards of fees in California. And I can write about other circuits' cases if I want to. So there.

The reason I'm writing about this one is that the EEOC pursued a case well beyond the point that it should have determined it lacked merit. The investigator initially assigned to the charge was on a mission. The plaintiff's deposition doomed the plaintiff's claim. The settlement demands were unreasonably high.

The court of appeals first decided that EEOC failed to "conciliate" or attempt to resolve the case in good faith. The agency made a very high demand and then immediately closed conciliation efforts when the demand was rejected, despite the employer's attempt to engage in settlement negotiations. However, the court also found that failure to conciliate is not a jurisdictional defect.

The court then held that the district court's award of fees against the EEOC was within the court's discretion. The district court awarded about $225,000 in fees for the period of time following the plaintiff's deposition until summary judgment. (That's a heck of a bill for post-deposition litigation through summary judgment, but the district court did not find fault in the billings). The court of appeals agreed with the district court that after the plaintiff's deposition, the agency's further prosecution of the case was absolutely unjustifiable.

This case may be used in situations when a case of arguable merit at inception is revealed through discovery to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Fees should be awarded in favor of the employer from that point, if not from the beginning of the case.

DGV

Court of Appeal Affirms Jury Verdict Finding Adequate Accommodation

Julie Wilson worked as a radio dispatcher for Orange County's emergency communications system. Because of a disability that was aggravated by stress, she sought accommodations that included assignment only to certain shifts at certain times. The county temporarily gave her exactly what she wanted, but decided initially that the accommodation could not be permanent. After substantial negotiating, leaves, and rejected proposals, the County assented to all of Wilson's requests. The key issue was the delay between her initial request and the final accommodation. A jury returned a verdict for the county on her claim for denial of accommodation. The court of appeal affirmed:

The real gist of Wilson’s complaint is not that she wasn’t accommodated, but that it took too long for her supervisors to finally agree to a permanent arrangement--i.e., that she could return to work at Control One, in her same position, with the restrictions she wanted. It is this delay that forms the basis of her interactive process
claim. She argues that as a matter of law, the County failed to engage in a good faith
interactive process with her because it did not commence the interactive process until June 2005, prior to which the County simply “contrived a circumstance” to justify not engaging in the interactive process—namely, that Wilson’s disability was
only temporary.

* * *

Here, the record demonstrates the County engaged in a process aimed at trying to accommodate Wilson. Indeed, the success of its process is borne out by the fact
that in the end, Wilson got exactly what she wanted—albeit after a series of temporary accommodations.

The case is Wilson v. Orange County and the opinion is here.

SV Employment Law Article Pot Pourri

We publish articles bi-weekly in the Sacramento Daily Recorder newspaper, and about monthly in the San Francisco Daily Journal. Here are some of the articles we've published in the past few months:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FEHA CLAIMS ON THE VERGE OF EXTINCTION
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Shane K. Anderies
The Daily Recorder
2008-12-30

WILL CONGRESS BAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION?
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Carolyn Burnette
The Daily Recorder
2008-12-18

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND QUALIFICATION STANDARDS
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Matthew J. Norfleet
The Daily Recorder
2008-12-02

GOLDEN STATE OF MIND
By D. Gregory Valenza
The Daily Journal
2008-11-28

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING INTERNAL EEO COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Becki D. Graham
The Daily Recorder
2008-11-20

NEW LAW AIMS TO ENCOURAGE COMPLIANCE WITH DISABLED ACCESS RULES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Carolyn G. Burnette
The Daily Recorder
2008-11-06

ALTERNATIVE POSITIONS AS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: WHAT IS REQUIRED?
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Shane K. Anderies
The Daily Recorder
2008-10-08

THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and D. Gregory Valenza
The Daily Recorder
2008-09-24

FLESHING OUT THE ADA
By D. Gregory Valenza
The Daily Journal
2008-09-16

BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS KEEP GETTING MORE COMPLICATED
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Matthew J. Norfleet
The Daily Recorder
2008-09-10

EDWARDS V. ARTHUR ANDERSEN: NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS AND GENERAL RELEASES
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Becki D. Graham
The Daily Recorder
2008-08-26

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EMPLOYMENT LAW DECISIONS 2007-2008
By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Shane K. Anderies
The Daily Recorder
2008-07-31

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