Amendments to California’s Sick Leave Law Are Passed

July 22, 2015 by

Amendments-to-California's-sick-leave-law-are-passedOn July 13, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to California’s sick leave law; the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. The law (also known as Assembly Bill 1522) greatly increased the number of workers in California who are eligible for paid sick leave. The amendments make substantial changes to the law – many of which are favorable to California employers.

The amendments (which are contained in Assembly Bill No. 304) include the following changes to the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act:

  • They add an important stipulation to a provision in the original law. The provision stated that employees who work in California for 30 or more days within a year of beginning their employment are entitled to paid sick days (at a rate of at least one hour for every 30 hours worked). The new amendments require that an employee do that work for the same employer in order to qualify for the accrued sick leave.
  • They allow an employer to provide for employee sick leave accrual on a basis other than one hour for each 30 hours worked – provided that the accrual is on a regular basis, and the employee will have 24 hours of accrued sick leave available by the 120th calendar day of employment.
  • They allow an employer to limit an employee’s use of paid sick days to 24 hours or three days in each year of employment, or a calendar year, or a 12-month period.
  • They require employers to calculate paid sick leave based on an employee’s regular pay rate, or by the total wages divided by the total hours worked in a 90-day period, or the wages for other forms of paid leave.
  • They state that if an employee is rehired within one year of the end of their employment, then the employer is not required to reinstate the employee’s accrued paid time off, if the employee was paid off for their time when their employment ended.
  • They make a clarification regarding the original law’s rule that an employer is required under the original law to keep records for three years documenting an employee’s hours worked and paid sick days accrued. The amendments clarify that the employer is not obligated to inquire into (or record) the purposes for which an employee uses sick leave or paid time off.
  • They allow some employers who provided paid sick leave or paid time off to employers prior to January 1, 2015 to keep their old policies, so long as they make available an amount of leave applicable to employees that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as specified in this section.

Can This Affect Your Business?

If you have concerns about what these amendments mean for your company’s policies, or you are considering making a change to your policies based on the passage of the amendments, it is highly advisable that you speak to an attorney. The employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa are available for consultation. You can call or email their office today.

Filed Under: Paid Sick Leave Tagged With: , , , ,

The Ninth Circuit Rules on Binding Arbitration Agreements

July 6, 2015 by

binding arbitration, arbitrationsIt has become extremely common for employers to encourage their new employees to sign binding arbitration agreements, in which they waive their right to a jury trial. (These agreements are intended to compel the employees to resolve any future disputes they have with the company via arbitration, which is generally cheaper than going to court.)

Some employers request that their employees sign a binding arbitration agreement directly, but others take a different approach. They simply include an arbitration agreement in their employee handbook, and then ask their employees to sign a statement agreeing to the terms of the handbook.

The advantage to the latter approach is that if the employer decides to update certain aspects of its arbitration agreement, it can revise the handbook, and then ask employees to acknowledge the changes – rather than asking them to sign brand new arbitration agreements.

Court Challenges to Binding Arbitration Clauses in Employee Handbooks

However, one problem that employers have had with this approach is that in some cases, courts have ruled that it is insufficient. One such case was Nelson vs. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corporation, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee was not compelled to arbitrate, despite an arbitration clause in the company’s employee handbook.

When the employee was hired, he signed the following statement:

“I have received a copy of the Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corporation Handbook…and understand that the Handbook is a guideline to the company’s policies and procedures. I agree to read it and understand its contents. If I have any questions regarding its contents I will contact my supervisor or Human Resources Representative.”

The Court ruled that arbitration cannot be compelled unless the employee has knowingly agreed to waive his or her right to a jury trial. And because the statement above did not mention that the handbook contains an arbitration clause – or that signing the statement constituted a waiver of the right to a judicial forum – the Court ruled that the employee had not knowingly made such a waiver.

Ashbey vs. Archstone Prop. Mgmt.

But what if an employee signs an agreement to abide by the terms of a handbook, and the agreement itself mentions the duty to arbitrate? In May 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that such an agreement is enough to compel arbitration.

In Ashbey vs. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., the Court ruled that an employee waived his right to a jury trial when he signed an agreement that contained the following language:

“I acknowledge that I have received directions as to how I may access the Archstone Company Policy Manual, including the Dispute Resolution Policy. I understand that Archstone can administer, interpret, discontinue, supplement, amend or withdraw any of the employment and personnel policies and procedures set forth in this Company Policy Manual. I understand that it is my responsibility to understand the Archstone Company Policy Manual, including the Dispute Resolution Policy, and to adhere to all of the policies contained herein.”

The Court held that because the agreement “expressly notified” the employee about the dispute resolution policy – and did so twice – it was sufficient to compel arbitration. The Court also held that it is not a requirement for the statement to actually list the terms of the policy.

Crafting an Effective Binding Arbitration Agreement Policy

If you want to feel secure that your company’s arbitration agreements will stand up in court, the employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa can help. You can call or email our office today to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Binding Arbitration Tagged With: , , , ,

Awarding Court Costs and Labor Attorney Fees in Employment Discrimination Cases

June 11, 2015 by

labor attorney feesClients involved in employment discrimination cases will often ask, “If I win, will the other side have to pay my labor attorney fees, or my court costs?” The answer often depends on whether the client is the employer or the employee.

Federal Labor Cases

In federal actions involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there is an “asymmetrical rule.” If the plaintiff wins, he or she will automatically receive compensation from the other party for his or her attorney’s fees. But a winning defendant does not automatically receive compensation for attorney’s fees. A winning defendant will only receive such compensation if the court finds that the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.”

If you’re an employer, you may be thinking that seems awfully unfair. Why is this the rule? The precedent is the result of a Supreme Court decision, Christiansburg vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The ruling held that “Assessing attorney’s fees against plaintiffs simply because they do not finally prevail would substantially add to the risks inhering in most litigation and would undercut the efforts of Congress to promote the vigorous enforcement of the provisions of Title VII.” The Court was concerned that victims of discrimination would be reluctant to come forward if they knew that they would be liable for potentially huge legal fees if they lost.

California Employment Cases

Of course, not all employment discrimination claims involve Title VII. California has its own standards on court cost issues for cases involving the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Unfortunately, these standards have not always been clear.

Section 1032 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states, “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” However, Government Code Section 12695 states that in FEHA cases, “the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party…reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.”

On May 5, 2015, the Supreme Court of California cleared up any confusion as to whether Sect. 12695 is an exception to Sect. 1032. In the case of Williams vs. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, the Court held that Sect. 12695 is an exception – and thus a prevailing defendant in a FEHA case should not automatically be awarded courts costs (or attorney’s fees).

The ruling states that the standard used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Christiansburg should apply to FEHA parties. In the words of the court:

“A prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily receive his or her costs and attorney fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. A prevailing defendant, however, should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds that the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continues to litigate after it clearly became so.”

Concerned About Labor And Employment Cases Costs and Fees?

If you have any questions about the ruling, or about the prospect of paying your opposing parties’ court costs or attorney’s fees, you may wish to contact the Santa Rosa employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. You can call or email us today to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: California Labor Law Tagged With: , , , ,

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.