New California Legislation Affects Employee Parental Activity Leave

October 26, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

New California legislation affects employee parental activity leave. One of the many bills signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 11, 2015 was Senate Bill 579. This bill amended Section 230.8 of the California Labor Code, which allows employees to take leave from work each year to participate in activities related to their children’s schooling or day care. The section, as revised, now applies to foster parents and stepparents, and it allows employees to take leave for a wider range of activities.

The Specifics of the Parental Activity Leave Bill

The basic provisions of Section 230.8 include:

Requiring California employers with 25 or more employees at a particular location to allow any employee who is a parent (or a guardian or grandparent with custody of a child) to take up to 40 hours of leave per year in order to participate in activities at their children’s schools and/or day care facilities.
An employee may not take off more than eight hours in a calendar month for these school or daycare activities, and the employee must provide his or her employer with reasonable notice.
An employee who decides to take leave for these activities must make use of any vacation time, compensatory time off, or personal leave to which he or she is entitled. In addition, if the employee is entitled to time off without pay, then he or she may make use of it for these activities.
The employee must provide the employer with written documentation from the school or daycare facility if the employer requests it.

SB 579 has amended the section in a number of ways relating to parental activity, including the following:

The term “parent” can now apply not only to a parent or a grandparent, but also to a stepparent, a foster parent, or someone who stands in loco parentis to a child. (“In loco parentis” refers to someone legally standing in the place of a parent.)
The term “licensed child daycare facility” has been replaced with the term “licensed child care provider.”
The time off may be used to find a school or child care facility, or to enroll or reenroll one’s child in a school or child care facility.
The time off may also be used to address an emergency related to a school or a child care provider. The statute explains that the term “emergency” refers to when the child of the employee is unable to remain at his or her school or child care facility. (The possible reasons for this include closure of the facility, behavioral problems, natural disasters, and a request from the school or child care provider that the child be removed.)

SB 358: Equal Pay for Substantially Similar Work

October 20, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

The concept of paying men and women equal pay for equal work should be familiar to California employers but under new legislation, wage equality requirements no longer apply only to employees with identical job descriptions. Employers are now required to pay male and female employees equal wages for doing “substantially similar” work.

The legislation in question, California Senate Bill 358, was signed into law on October 6, 2015 by Governor Jerry Brown at the Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in Richmond. The new legislation amends Section 1197.5 of the California Labor Code.

What Does the equal pay Bill Say?

SB 358 states that an employer may not pay any of its employees at lower wage rates than employees of the opposite sex for work that is substantially similar, when viewed “as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions,” unless the employer can demonstrate that:

The wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors: a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, and/or a bona fide factor other than sex (such as education, training or experience.)
Each factor is relied upon reasonably, and
The factor or factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential.

The legislation clarifies that if an employer cites a “bona fide factor other than sex,” it must not be based on, or derived from, a sex-based differential in compensation. In addition, the factor must be related to the job in question, and it must be consistent with a business necessity.

Other aspects of the legislation include:

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is in charge of administering and enforcing the legislation, may supervise the wages that are due to employees when a violation takes place.
Employers must maintain records of the wages and wage rates, job classifications, and other terms of employment of their employees. The records must be maintained for at least three years.
When an employee files a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the name of the employee will be kept confidential until the Division establishes the validity of the complaint. (There is an exception to this, however, if abridging the employee’s confidentiality prevents the Division from investigating the complaint.) If the employee withdraws the complaint before his or her confidentiality is abridged, then the Division will maintain the employee’s confidentiality.

Your Equal Pay Responsibilities Under the New Law

If you run a business in Sonoma County, Mendocino County or Lake County California, and you have not monitored whether there is a gender gap in your employee’s wages, it is time to start. Consulting an attorney to ensure your wages meet the standards of this legislation may be far less expensive than dealing with a gender discrimination lawsuit. [Read more…]

Filed Under: California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Gender Discrimination, Wage and Hour Law Tagged With: discrimination, equal pay, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, sexism, Ukiah Employment Lawyer

Will Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Become a Thing of the Past in California?

October 6, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

In a previous blog post, we discussed a decision by the Ninth Circuit regarding mandatory arbitration agreements for employees. A major change to this area of law may be on the way in the state of California, if Assembly Bill 425 is signed into law. This bill would altogether prohibit employers from requiring their employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.

AB 425 was passed by the California Assembly and Senate in August 2015. If it is signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, it will take effect on January 1, 2016. The bill would become Section 925 of the California Labor Code.

What Does the Bill Require?

AB 465, if enacted, will prohibit any employer from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, to agree to the waiver of “any legal right, penalty, forum, or procedure for any employment law violations.” It also prohibits employers from threatening, retaliating against, or discriminating against employees for refusing to sign such waivers. In addition, it stipulates that if a waiver of this type will be unenforceable if it is required from an employee (or a potential employee) as a condition of employment or continued employment.

You may be wondering how, under those regulations, an employee’s agreement to arbitrate would be legally valid. The statute stipulates that any waiver of employment rights (such as an agreement to arbitrate) must be “knowing and voluntary and in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of employment.” If the employer seeks to enforce the waiver, then the employer would have the burden of proof to show that the waiver was knowing and voluntary.

There are several other important aspects of AB 465:

If the bill is enacted, it will apply only to waivers that were signed on or after January 1, 2016 – so you do not have to worry that this legislation will render any current contracts invalid.
It authorizes reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing claimant.
It exempts organizations that are considered self-regulatory under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and it does not apply to regulations adopted under that Act pertaining to any requirement of a self-regulatory organization that a person arbitrate disputes between an employer and an employee.
It does not apply to employees who were individually represented by legal counsel when negotiating the terms of an agreement to “waive any right, penalty, remedy, forum or procedure for a violation of this code.”

Binding Arbitration and Preparing for the Future

If AB 465 is passed into law, it will have major ramifications for employers who require their employees to sign arbitration agreements. If you are an employer in California, and you would like your employees to commit to arbitration, it may be in your best interests to begin thinking now about how you will revise your policies if the bill is enacted. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Binding Arbitration, California Employment Law Tagged With: arbitration, employment law, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney

Does Your Policy on Employee Meal Breaks Violate California Law?

September 25, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

California’s Labor Code lays out the requirements for when employees must receive meal breaks. Under Section 512(a), an employee with a work period of more than 10 hours per day must be allowed two meal periods that are at least 30 minutes long. If the employee has worked fewer than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee.

That may sound fairly straightforward. However, Industrial Wage Commission (IWC) Order No. 5-2001 has a provision, Section 11(d),that states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, employees in the health care industry who work shifts in excess of eight hours in a workday may voluntarily waive their right to one of their two meal periods.” (The order does not place any limitations on the length of the shift.) This has raised a question for employers in the health care industry – if an employee works for more than 12 hours, can the second meal break be waived?

Gerard v. Orange Coast Medical Center

A California Court of Appeal has weighed in with an answer. In Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, the court ruled that a hospital violated the rights of its employees by directing them to work shifts in excess of 12 hours without two meal breaks. The court went on to declare that Section 11(d) of IWC order 5-2001 is partially invalid.

The ruling states: “We agree that the conflict between Section 11(d) and Section 512(a) creates an unauthorized additional exception to the general rule set out in Section 512(a), beyond the express exception for waivers on shifts of no more than 12 hours. ‘Under the maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, if exemptions are specified in a statute, we may not imply additional exemptions unless there is a clear legislative intent to the contrary.’”

The court then points to the text of Section 516 of the Labor Code, which states that the IWC may adopt or amend working conditions with respect to meal periods, except as provided in Section 512. In light of this exception, the opinion states that the California legislature intended to prohibit the IWC from amending its wage orders in ways that would conflict with Section 512’s meal period requirements.

In partially invalidating Section 11(d), the court ruled that its decision would be applied retroactively. It held that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek premium damages for any failure by the hospital to provide mandatory second meals that took place within the previous three years. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law Tagged With: california labor law, employment

New Precedent for California No Rehire Clause – Golden vs. Cal. Emergency Physicians

May 14, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

New precedent for California no rehire clause – Golden vs. Cal. Emergency Physicians. It’s fairly well-known that the state of California doesn’t look kindly on non-compete provisions in employment contracts. Settlement agreements with “no rehire” provisions have not posed many problems for employers, however – until now. In a case that could have major consequences for California employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a “no rehire” clause can violate the same California law that prohibits non-compete provisions.

No Rehire Clause Decision

The decision, Golden vs. Cal. Emergency Physicians, was handed down in April 2015. It held that a settlement agreement’s provisions about re-hiring could be considered overly broad – and thus could be found to impermissibly restrain an employee’s professional practice, which is a violation of Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.

What Happened in the Case?

The employee, David Golden, was a doctor employed by California Emergency Physicians Medical Group. He was terminated from his position, and then filed an employment discrimination suit. The parties eventually agreed to settle.

The settlement agreement contained a clause stating that he would waive any and all rights to be employed by CEP, or to be employed at any facility owned by CEP. The clause also stated that if Dr. Golden were to become employed at a facility unaffiliated with CEP, and then CEP bought or contracted with that facility, then Dr. Golden would be terminated without any liability.

Dr. Golden was unhappy with this clause, and refused to sign it. He argued that the clause violated Section 16600, which states that a contract “by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

When his case went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the court ruled against Dr. Golden. The district court held that because the agreement didn’t prevent him from working for a competitor of CEP (or for a hospital or facility operated by someone other than CEP), then the agreement could not be considered a violation of Section 16600.

This decision, however, was overturned by the Ninth Circuit, which sent the case back to the district court. The Ninth Circuit held that the language of 16600 is broad, and should not be interpreted to apply only to non-compete clauses. The court, however, did not take a stance on whether the agreement actually violated Section 16600.

What Does This Case Mean For You?

If you are an employer in California, and you have signed no-rehire agreements with former employees, there’s no need to panic. The ruling does not prohibit no-rehire agreements altogether. But it does mean that some no-rehire agreements could conceivably be considered violations of Section 16600.

Before you sign any new settlement agreements, it may be wise to ensure that the language you use does not go overboard in restricting the employee’s rights. If you are concerned about the enforceability of your agreements, you may wish to speak to a lawyer. The employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa, have a great deal of experience with employment contracts. You can call or email them today to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: California Employment Law, Employment Contract Tagged With: petaluma labor law attorney, Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa labor law attorneys, ukiah labor law attorney

Big Win for California On-site On-call Employees

March 10, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Big win for California on-site on-call employees. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., a California employer was delivered a crushing blow when the California Supreme Court ruled that the company’s compliance with a federal employment law that permitted the exclusion of compensation for sleep time was irrelevant in determining CPS compliance with California employment law. In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions Inc. the dispute was whether California’s Wage Order 4 was being adhered to by CPS. In determining that CPS’s wage policy violated the Wage Order 4, CPS and other California employer’s will now have to determine what retroactive effect if any the ruling will have on their compensation policy for employees.

The California On-site On-call Employees of CPS

The ruling in Mendiola requires that on-call security guards employed by CPS at different construction worksites are entitled to retroactive pay for 24 hours of work, despite the fact that their same employees only actively worked 8 hours per day. Originally, the on-call security guards employed by CPS had a written agreement with the company to reside in trailers provided by CPS. While residing at these trailers, the on-call/site security guards were allowed to rest and enjoy other leisure activities, though with some limitations. The guards were compensated at an hourly rate for all time spent patrolling their construction worksite. However, no compensation was received for time spent on-call at the worksite trailers unless an alarm went off or other circumstances required the attention outside of the trailer, or during the time spent waiting to be relieved from work by another guard. Ultimately guards were only paid for their time spent patrolling sites, and time spent in the investigation of disturbances occurring at the site.

The difficulty in this case is the fact that CPS did not intend to violate California state law when developing its compensation plan for on-site, on-call employees. In fact throughout the 1990s CPS worked with the California Labor Commissioner in order to ensure that the compensation policy in place, which excluded sleep time at the trailers, was in compliance with relevant federal and state law. The basis for this suit was a request by CPS for a declaratory relief action, requesting assistance from the California courts to review the compensation plan, and to also rule on its viability. Ultimately it was determined that though the federal law provided an express provision allowing the exclusion of sleep time in compensation, this fact was irrelevant in the determination of whether CPS was in compliance with state law because, as the court put it, California “is free to offer greater protection.” As a result, subject to Wage Order 4, CPS will be required to retroactively pay its employees for their rest time while on-site and on-call.

The ruling in the CPS case is interesting in that it does not involve an employer attempting to thwart labor employment law. In fact the unfavorable ruling was the result of CPS attempting to ensure their compliance with California state law. However, the holding means that other employers in California who do not pay compensation for rest time at on-site locations for on-call employees could be required to provide retroactive compensation to these employees. If you have any legal questions regarding California’s wage and compensation laws, and live in Sonoma County, Mendocino County or Lake County California contact the attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa today.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, Wage and Hour Law Tagged With: Petaluma Employment Attorney, Petaluma Employment Lawyer, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, Ukiah Employment Attorney, Ukiah Employment Lawyer

I’m Being Laid Off But Must Train My Replacement?

March 5, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

I’m being laid off but have to train my replacement? SCE is Southern California’s biggest utility provider. The company has recently faced public criticism after it was confirmed that SCE would be laying off many members of its large IT department in order to replace them with new hires from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in Mumbai, India, as well as from Infosys, an IT company in Bangalore. These new employees will be allowed to begin work in Southern California through the U.S. federal government’s H-1B program. The intent of the H-1B program is to allow foreign workers to access jobs in the U.S. that employers are unable to fill with U.S. employees. The main complaint about using the two Indian companies is that SCE already had U.S. employees who were trained, ready and willing to complete the work required, thus negating the very need for H-1B employees in the first place.

SCE and the Alleged H-1B Program Abuse

SCE is one of Southern California’s largest utility companies, which, before layoffs, reported having 1,800 employees in its IT department alone, with an additional 1,500 workers on contract. The IT department’s transition effort will result in an estimated 400 employee layoffs along with an additional 100 employees terminating their employment voluntarily. The employees who will be leaving SCE’s IT department have years of experience in their jobs, and will be forced to train their replacements in the upcoming months as part of the broader transition effort. Not surprisingly, many of the workers feel betrayed by SCE, and believe this transition is an attempt to pay lower wages to foreign employees, through the abuse of the U.S. federal government H-1B program. This argument is somewhat persuasive when one considers the very goals and purpose of the H-1B program, which is to provide employers access to non-U.S. employees when there are not enough domestic employees to provide the unique services that their businesses require. However, as one employee put it,

“Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job that an…employee wasn’t already performing”.

Laid Off and Training My Replacement

The fact that some of the laid-off U.S. employees will be training their own successors seems to support the claim that the U.S. employees are skilled, trained and capable of providing all of the employment services that SCE requires.

In response, SCE has stated that the transition towards using Tata and Infosys H-1B employees will inevitably “lead to enhancements that deliver faster and more efficient tools and applications for services that customers rely on. Through outsourcing, SCE’s information technology organization will adopt a proven business strategy commonly and successfully used by top U.S. companies that SCE benchmarks against.”

However, SCE’s response does not touch on the issue of why California, home to Silicon Valley and some of the most advanced tech specialists and professionals, was not an adequate location to find the employees that SCE required. Some from within SCE have voiced concerns that the new Indian tech workers do not posses the necessary skill levels of the very people that they will soon replace.

The layoffs at SCE are a unique example of the immigration issues involved in foreign labor and employment. If you think you need a Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, or Mendocino County Labor Lawyer, contact the California labor and employment lawyers at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa today.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, Labor Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, california employment lawyer, lake county labor lawyer, Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney

Employers Warned Against Providing Financial Incentives to Buy Non Employer Health Coverage

January 8, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Why is the Government warning employers against providing financial incentives to buy non employer health coverage? The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has effectively revolutionized the U.S. healthcare insurance system. Now there is no longer an emphasis primarily on employers sponsoring the bulk of workers’ health insurance plans. In fact, there are now online exchanges where employees can shop for and purchase their own medical coverage instead of paying into their existing employment based plan. Some employers have welcomed this shift in burdens. However, some employers may be taking it too far, and the federal government has gone on record warning employers against providing financial payments to their high-cost employees as incentive for them to leave their employer’s medical plan in favor of purchasing their own individual market policy.

Non Employer Health Coverage, Rising Costs and Employer Incentive

From the employer standpoint, the costs associated with providing employee healthcare have risen so much since the ACA’s implementation that they are looking for any way to lessen their financial burdens. Some employers are finding it cheaper to pay their high-cost workers in exchange for the worker agreeing to exit their existing benefit plans, so that the employer does not have to continue making contribution payments on that employee’s behalf.

A November 14, 2014 memo released by the U.S. Department of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) stated that providing payments in exchange for employees purchasing individual market policies is considered unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of their health status. In fact, according to a May Kaiser Health news report, health insurance consultants and brokers have been advising employers to shift workers with expensive health conditions into individual market policies as a cost-cutting mechanism. Such practices are in direct opposition of the ACA, which requires that health insurance exchange plans accept all applicants, regardless of their existing illnesses or health conditions. This acceptance must be at prices that have been pre-established before acceptance.

The reality is that the costs associated with implementing the ACA have resulted in some companies’ health insurance liability costs increasing by over 100 percent. As a result, large, self-insured employers are looking for any way to cut costs. Employers are finding that the removal of just one high-cost employee from the group insurance plan can result in annual savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some, a one-off lump sum payment to an employee is well worth the future financial benefits associated with that employee’s exit from the group policy.

Both the federal government as well as consumer advocates are concerned about this practice because it could erode the effectiveness of employer-based coverage, while creating higher costs and premiums for the entire insurance marketplace. If employees who would be better suited in employer-based plans are incentivized to switch to individual market policies, the entire marketplace would be forced to absorb the costs associated with the employee’s sickness instead of the employers, which are the one’s with the actual vested interest in the employee’s well being.

Employer payments in exchange for a worker exiting their existing employment based insurance policy is a violation of the ACA, and is considered unlawful discrimination. If an employer has propositioned you about switching to an individual market policy in exchange for payment, you should contact the Santa Rosa, Ukiah, Lake County California employment law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. today.

Filed Under: Affordable Care Act, Blog, California Employment Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, california labor attorney, labor and employement attorney, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Discrimination Attorney, Ukiah Employment Attorney

A Guide to Some of California’s Most Frustrating Employee Protection Laws

December 19, 2014 by Beck Law P.C.

A guide to some of California’s most frustrating employee protection laws. While California is typically considered one of the most worker-friendly states in the U.S., the flip-side is that many employers operating within the state believe that California’s employee-protection laws are onerous and complicated to understand. In fact, employers who operate in California as well as other states have noted how the laws within this state are frustrating to comply with, especially when compared to more business-friendly jurisdictions. What employers have been confounded by is the administrative burdens, the lack of flexibility with regards to compliance and enforcement, and also the enhanced degree of litigation possibilities. The California Chamber of Commerce decision to enact 24 additional new state employment laws and amendments will go into effect starting in 2015, which will provide additional procedures and regulations that employers must adhere to. The following includes the four most difficult and frustrating employment laws that both California employers and employees should be aware of in order to avoid violations and to be fully informed about employee rights.

The Four Most Confusing California Employee Protection Laws

Overtime: While in many states overtime cannot be paid until after over 40 hours have been worked by the employee, in California employees are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 8 hours in one single day. This law has confused many new employees and employers because its effects reach beyond just overtime pay. Under the law, employees are prevented from having the flexibility to work late or leave early and subsequently make up the hours later during that same workweek without their employer being required to pay overtime wages.
Employee Breaks: California has extremely strict requirements for employee breaks. In fact, employers are required to provide employees with both a 30-minute meal break per every five hours of work, plus a 10-minute rest break for every four hours of work. This law has resulted in a great deal of class actions against employers, especially the section about the 10-minute rest break, which is a requirement not provided by many other states. A 2012 decision clarified the 10-minute rest break requirement, holding that employers did not have to relieve their workers of all of the work duties during the break. However, this rule has been difficult for employees who would simply like the flexibility to skip their rest break in order to take a longer lunch. While employers would like to provide their employees with the flexibility to do so, fear of litigation prevents such employers from providing this leniency.
Layoffs: California state law requirements for layoff reporting are some of the most stringent in the country. While federal law requires 60-day notices before any layoffs for those employers with over 100 full-time workers, California law requires the same notice from employers that have 75 or more part-time and full-time employees.
Employment Contract Non-Compete Agreements: Non-compete agreements provide employers with protections and prohibit employees from soliciting their employer’s clients after the employment relationship is terminated, or taking other actions that place the employees in direct competition with the employer. While in many states non-compete agreements in employment contracts are enforceable, in California non-compete agreements are not valid.

The above is not a completely exhaustive lists of all of the California laws that are difficult to understand and comply with. However, understanding the basics of these laws will keep employers out of trouble and allow employees to understand their basic rights. When you need labor and employment law legal assistance, make sure to contact the labor and employment attorneys at Beck Law, P.C. in Santa Rosa, California.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law Tagged With: mendocino county labor lawyer, Petaluma Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, sonoma county labor attorney

Landmark CA Temporary Worker Protection Law

October 31, 2014 by Beck Law P.C.

Landmark California temporary worker protection law. This month, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a new bill into law that will finally hold businesses responsible for situations when subcontracted temporary staffing agencies that a business utilizes underpay and/or endangers temporary workers. The law, previously known as Assembly Bill 1897, was created to address at least some of the accountability issues facing the temporary worker industry. In industries such as food processing and warehousing, outsourcing work to low-paying temporary staffing agencies has become extremely profitable practice for two reasons. First, the cost of using temporary workers is less than the costs associated with utilizing full-time employees. For example, under the Affordable Care Act, businesses are not required to provide health insurance policies for temporary workers, though they are required to cover the costs associated with providing health insurance to full-time employees. Second the use of temporary workers has allowed companies to skirt responsibilities regarding the adherence to workplace regulations and laws. Companies have been able to avoid responsibility for workplace regulation violations even if they are the one’s overseeing the work of temporary employees.

Temporary Worker Protection Law Aims to Curb Abuse of Temporary Worker Status

In the past decade, Southern California’s Inland Empire has become the home to a massive retail distribution industry that has been known to exploit low-wage temporary workers in order to produce a wide assortment of retail products at low costs. These temporary workers have spoken out about the unsafe working conditions and rampant wage theft that they have experienced. Worker advocates and labor unions have criticized the businesses who exploit the labor of California’s temporary workers, and the state has finally decided to take notice with the implementation of the new law specifically created to protect temporary workers.

AB 1897 requires “the client employer to share with a labor contractor all civil legal responsibility and civil liabilities when it comes to paying wages to temporary workers. AB 1897 also prohibits client employers who utilize temporary staffing agencies from shifting the legal duties and liabilities associated with workplace safety to the contracted agency. As a result of these regulations, the state of California now has the right to fine businesses when the temporary staffing agencies they have contracted with have violated federal and state workplace laws.

Though it may seem obvious to some that businesses employing temporary staff should be held accountable for violations and bad working conditions that are experienced by temporary workers, the new law has created some discord amongst the business community. In fact, the California Chamber of Commerce has spoken out against AB 1897, stating that the law would “discourage further growth in this state, and will certainly discourage out-of-state companies from [re]locating here.” However, regardless of this dissent, California remains committed to protecting the rights and safety of all California employees regardless of their status as a full-time or temporary employee. In fact, AB 1897 is one of the many labor-friendly laws that has been recently passed in California. Other relevant laws include raising California’s minimum wage to $10 per hour, as well as newly governor-approved bill that will require employers to provide employees with paid sick leave.

If your business needs legal representation in Sonoma County, Mendocino County, or Lake County California contact the attorneys at Beck Law, P.C. We are prepared to help you in any way that we can.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, california employment lawyer, Petaluma Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, ukiah lalabor attorney