On September 3, 2015, the Ninth Circuit provided additional guidance into compensability of commute time under the California Labor Code in Alcantar v. Hobart Service, 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff Alcantar was a service technician who performed certain maintenance and repair services. Although he was assigned to a branch, Alcantar spent most of his time driving between his home and customer locations in an employer-provided vehicle where he carried various tools and replacement parts for the repairs he was required to perform. Hobart Service paid Alcantar for the time spent driving from his home to the first customer location and from the last customer location back to his home only if the commute exceeded his commute to and from his assigned branch. (more…)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2015 Term began hearing arguments on October 5, 2015. As with most of the Court’s terms, there are at least four or five labor and employment cases that may have significant impact for employers. Below, are a couple of these cases: (more…)
On October 11, 2015, Gov. Brown declined to sign AB 465. The proposed legislation would have made it unlawful to require: “another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of [the California Labor Code], as a condition of employment, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Labor Commissioner, state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity.” In other words, the legislation sought to make arbitration agreements as a condition of employment a violation of California law. (more…)
On October 6, 2015, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 358 (the “Fair Pay Act”). The Bill makes a number of changes to existing law as discussed in our previous blog. The Fair Pay Act will take effect on January 1, 2016 and will be one of the strongest equal pay laws in the nation. Once in effect, employers may begin to see more complaints filed with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and in court alleging failure to provide equal pay. (more…)
On October 6, 2015, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 358 (the “Fair Pay Act”). The new law will take effect on January 1, 2016 and will be one of the strongest equal pay laws in the nation.
Under existing law employers were prohibited from wage rate differentials based on sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Existing law also recognized exceptions to the prohibition where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex. (more…)
Effective immediately, Governor Brown signed AB 1506 on October 2, 2015 to amend California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) to give employers a right to cure certain wage statement violations before an employee may bring a civil action under PAGA. Under the amended rule, an employer may cure a violation of Labor Code section 226(a), which obligates an employer to provide employees with the inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. However, an employer may take advantage of this provision only once for the same violation of the statute during each 12-month period.
This document is intended to provide you with general information about legal developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Hannibal Odisho (415-697-3463 or ). This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.
On August 13, 2015, the California Supreme Court held in Cordova, et al. v. City of Los Angeles that public entities are not “categorically immune” from liability where it is alleged that dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injuries, but did not cause the third party conduct that precipitated the accident. (more…)
Over the past year, the use of police body cameras have become a high-profile issue for police and government leaders. Should they be worn? How to pay for it? When should they be activated? Who controls the footage? Who can see the footage? These questions have spurred a national debate and legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. Over the next few weeks, AGHW will publish a series of articles regarding the body camera issue. This week’s posting addresses a threshold question: how to pay for them? At a time when many (if not most) public entities are still feeling the after-effects of the Great Recession and funding is scarce, this is a fundamental inquiry. (more…)
On July 3, 2015 the San Francisco city ordinances known as the “Retail Workers Bill of Rights,” which were passed in November 2014, go into effect in the City of San Francisco. These ordinances require covered employers to ensure that the following five requirements are complied with:
Who is Covered?
As it is defined, the Retail Workers Bill of Rights applies to “Formula Retail Establishments” with at least 20 retail sales establishments worldwide and 20 or more employees in San Francisco. The term “Formula Retail Establishment” means establishments that are in business for the purpose of conducting retail sales or service, and maintain at least two of the following features: (1) a standardized array of merchandise; (2) a standardized façade; (3) a standardized décor and color scheme; (4) uniform apparel; (5) standardized signage; and (6) a trademark or service mark.(more…)
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a near unanimous decision for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a religious discrimination case. To give you some background, Title VII prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that could be accommodated without undue hardship. The issue before the Court was “whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.” (more…)