In 2018, the California Supreme Court (in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court) created a strict new test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, with a greater presumption that workers should be characterized as employees. As previously discussed, the “ABC” test presumes that a worker is an employee unless the an employer can meet its burden of proof with respect to all three of the following factors:(more…)
employment law advice
Outgoing Governor Jerry Brown signed dozens of bills into law on Sunday, September 30, 2018. Many of these new laws are in response to the #metoo movement and specifically target sexual harassment. This blog summarizes the key features of these laws and their effect on employers as well as others, such as VCs, who can now be held legally responsible under the sexual harassment laws for harassing non-employee persons who work for actual or potential portfolio companies.(more…)
Recently, another technology company defeated class certification in a gender discrimination lawsuit. On July 3, 2018, a California state court judge denied female Twitter employees class certification in a lawsuit entitled Huang v. Twitter. This ruling follows a federal judge’s denial of class-action status to females in a gender bias case against Microsoft Corporation. Similar cases are currently pending against Google and Oracle.(more…)
California employers for the most part play it safe by following their job reference policies allowing them to state period of employment, job title, and possibly compensation (with the employee’s consent). For those who go beyond these basics, there is a dilemma when asked to respond to a reference check regarding a former employee who has had his or her employment terminated due to an accusation of sexual harassment. Thus, by informing a future employer of an employee’s misconduct, the former employer opens itself up to a defamation claim by an employee claiming he or she was falsely accused. (more…)
A federal court in California, (Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal February 8, 2018)), recently ruled that drivers for Grubhub, a food delivery service, are independent contractors rather than employees. The critical factor in the court’s decision was Grubhub’s lack of control over how its drivers perform deliveries, and even whether deliveries are to be performed at all. The decision is significant because, under California law, if an individual performing services is deemed to be an employee, that person has rights to minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursements and workers compensation benefits. In contrast, an independent contractor is not entitled to those benefits. The decision is thus a welcome development for employers who rely on flexible and semi-autonomous workers in the “gig” economy.(more…)
Several important new California employment laws took effect on January 1, 2018. These new laws will impact California employers from the pre-hiring stage through the entire employment relationship.
Restriction on Obtaining Salary History
Effective January 1, 2018, Assembly Bill 168 went into effect, which prohibits all California employers from:
- Directly or indirectly inquiring into a job applicant’s salary history, compensation or benefits
- Using such salary history information in determining whether to extend a job offer or in deciding what salary to offer the applicant.
Many Silicon Valley start-up companies, as well as larger companies such as Zappos, have moved from a traditionally structured work environment to a “holocracy” model. Essentially, while there are lots of variations, a holocracy model is a “boss free” business environment that focuses less on a structured workplace with traditional job descriptions and job titles, and more on creating self-organized “circles” of workers that concentrate on specific goals. Each circle of workers is a self-organized entity with the authority to manage itself, and the circle is ultimately part of a larger circle within the company. In addition, there is a general principle of transparency in the organization’s rules and decision-making. For companies that are able to tolerate a high level of adaptability, have motivated workers, and are established and mature enough to bounce back if things do not work out as anticipated, this is a highly attractive work model. However, this organizational model raises a host of potential employment issues, a few of which are highlighted below:
The 2016 Presidential election will go down as one of the most unpredictable, polarizing and controversial elections ever to occur in United States history. Although it was anticipated that the House of Representatives would remain controlled by the Republicans, the race was decidedly less clear with regard to control of the White House and Senate. But now that Republicans have won both majorities in the House and the Senate, and President-elect Donald Trump is in the midst of making selections of who will serve in his administration, what impact will this election have for employers? The outlook is murky at best.(more…)
California law requires that employers pay employees for all hours worked. The term “hours worked,” however, is not all that simple to define or apply. The analysis is compounded when the hours worked are, for instance, part of the employee’s commute, consist of travel to a remote conference, or spent moving from client to client throughout the day. Once you conclude the time is “worked,” you must include those numbers in overtime calculations, and decide whether you want to pay travel at a different rate than the employee’s regular rate of pay.(more…)
2014 will bring new laws for California employers, including an increase in the minimum wage, refinements to existing protections for employees, an expansion in the scope of discrimination protections, and additional protections to immigrant laborers.
AB 10 – Minimum Wage Increases: The state’s minimum wage will increase to $9 per hour on July 1, 2014, and $10 per hour on January 1, 2016. Employers should plan for these increases, both for their hourly employees who are paid minimum wage, and for exempt administrative, executive and professional employees who must be paid a salary equal to at least two times the minimum wage in order to qualify as exempt. Thus, the exempt minimum salary will jump to $37,440 on July 1, 2014, and $41,600 on January 1, 2016.(more…)