Raising The Bar: DOL Ups Salary Basis Requirement For Overtime Exemptions

Midnight working concepts
Photo Credit: istock.com/takasuu

Written by Jeremy Mittman 

This week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) unveiled the final version of its overtime exemption rule, which sets the annual salary threshold workers need to exceed to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) “white collar” exemptions at $35,568 per year (up from the current annual salary threshold of $23,660).  The DOL estimates that about 1.3 million workers who hadn’t previously been eligible for overtime will now stand to receive it once the rule takes effect on January 1, 2020.

 

The FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions apply to employees employed in bona fide administrative, executive, professional, and computer-related capacities, as well as outside sales employees.  If employees meet the requirements for these exemptions (including, where applicable, the salary basis requirement), employers need not pay them overtime for any time worked over 40 hours per week under federal law.

Continue reading “Raising The Bar: DOL Ups Salary Basis Requirement For Overtime Exemptions”

Have Independent Contractors in California? You May Need to Rethink That.

iStock-1044578200.jpg
Photo Credit: iStock.com/utah778

Written by Jeremy Mittman, Jeffrey Davine, Robert Lowe, and Susan Kohn Ross

On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law A.B. 5, codifying the “ABC test” adopted in the California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex (see, e.g. prior posts here, here, and here) and ensuring that most California workers should appropriately be classified as employees instead of independent contractors.  The bill goes into effect January 1, 2020.

Though supporters state that the bill is aimed primarily at the so-called “gig economy,” in reality A.B. 5 affects virtually every type of business in California.

Continue reading “Have Independent Contractors in California? You May Need to Rethink That.”

California Arbitration Roundup: Employers Are 3-1 For Favorable Arbitration Rulings

definition of arbitration
Photo Credit: istock.com/Devonyu

Written by Jeremy Mittman

California employers received mostly good news this past month on the arbitration front, with a trio of pro-employer arbitration-related rulings.  The California Supreme Court’s recent ruling invalidating an employer’s arbitration agreement (discussed below) is a notable exception.

California Supreme Court Invalidates Employer’s Arbitration Agreement As Unconscionable.

In OTO LLC v. Ken Kho, the California Supreme Court ruled that an Oakland Toyota dealership’s arbitration agreement with a former employee was unenforceable and was so unfair and one-sided that it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  “Arbitration is premised on the parties’ mutual consent, not coercion, and the manner of the agreement’s imposition here raises serious concerns on that score,” the majority opinion said. Continue reading “California Arbitration Roundup: Employers Are 3-1 For Favorable Arbitration Rulings”

Hold Your Horses: California Extends Deadline For Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training

Written by Jeremy Mittman and Bethanie Thau In 2018, California passed a law that greatly expanded sexual harassment training requirements for employers (see here). Under the law, employers of as few as five people must provide two hours of interactive sexual harassment training to their supervisors and one hour to all non-supervisory employees. The training was to have been completed by January 1, 2020.  Just … Continue reading Hold Your Horses: California Extends Deadline For Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training

California Supreme Court: Employee Can’t Bring Conversion Claim for Unpaid Wages

iStock-636789330.jpg
Photo Credit: istock.com/alfexe

By Jeremy Mittman and Stephen Franz

Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled that a former start-up employee could not hold his former boss personally liable for unpaid wages based on the theory of common law conversion.  Conversion is a legal term for theft.  This is a win for employers as, if the Court had ruled otherwise, employers potentially could be held liable for tort damages (including punitive damages) for failing to pay wages. Continue reading “California Supreme Court: Employee Can’t Bring Conversion Claim for Unpaid Wages”

New York State Enacts Broad New Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Legislation

Lawyers consulted on various lawsuits.
Photo Credit: istock.com/Morakot Kawinchan

by Jeremy Mittman and Gregory Hessinger 

Why This Matters

On August 12, 2019, New York Governor Cuomo signed into law legislation that greatly strengthens protections against sexual harassment. The bill, SB 6577, makes sweeping changes to current sexual harassment and discrimination laws.  Most will take effect 60 days from the date the Governor signed the bill, or on October 11, 2019. New York State employers should work with employment counsel to alter their policies and practices to comply with these new requirements.

Continue reading “New York State Enacts Broad New Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Legislation”

Let the Sunshine In: California and New York Prohibit Discrimination Based on Hairstyle

Three multi-racial office workers talking and laughing
Photo Credit: istock.com/kali9

By Jeremy Mittman

Within the past two weeks, both California and New York have passed laws prohibiting employers from discriminating based upon hairstyle.  Governor Gavin Newsom signed California’s “CROWN Act” (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) on July 3, 2019.  The law amends the state’s Education and Government Codes to define “race or ethnicity” as “inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.” It takes effect on January 1, 2020. Continue reading “Let the Sunshine In: California and New York Prohibit Discrimination Based on Hairstyle”

Get Back: NLRB Overturns Long-Standing “Public Space” Exception

By Jonathan Turner

Canteen, cafeteria, hotel restaurant blur background with blurry dining table and chair in school or university food facility interior empty hall
Photo Credit: istock.com/noipornpan 

Why This Matters

In June, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) overturned a nearly 38-year old precedent when it ruled that employers may deny nonemployee union representatives access to areas of their property open to the public, like cafeterias or restaurants, when the union representatives are there to solicit for or promote union membership.  In this ruling, the NLRB overruled its previous decisions that had recognized a “public space” exception under which employers were required to permit non-employee union organizers to engage in union activity in public cafeterias or restaurants if the organizers used the facility in a manner consistent with its intended use and were not disruptive. Continue reading “Get Back: NLRB Overturns Long-Standing “Public Space” Exception”

Timing Is Everything

Law should know concept, The lawyer explained to the client to plan the case in court.
Photo Credit: istock.com/Jirapong Manustrong

By Jeremy Mittman and Alfredo Ortega

Why This Matters

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Fort Bend County v. Davis. The message received loud and clear for employers is that timing is everything when it comes to discrimination cases and the use of claim-processing rules, embedded in Title VII, as an affirmative defense. Employers would be well served to ‘watch the clock’ and avoid losing the opportunity to receive an early dismissal. The Court ruled that federal courts can hear discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if employers do not timely raise the defense that workers failed to first file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or state enforcement agencies, as Title VII requires, before filing suit in federal court. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. Continue reading “Timing Is Everything”

Hit The Road, Jack: Uber Drivers are Independent Contractors According to NLRB

Taxi navigation
Photo Credit: iStock.com / lovro77

By Jonathan Turner

Why This Matters

On May 14, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) released an advice memorandum declaring that Uber drivers are independent contractors (not employees) and are, therefore, not eligible to unionize.  The memo, dated April 16, 2019, said the drivers are independent contractors under the NLRB’s recently-adopted SuperShuttle test (see here), because they have “significant entrepreneurial opportunity” while driving for Uber.   The NLRB’s standard only applies in the labor context.  It does not apply to California wage claims and lawsuits, where the California Supreme Court has adopted the ABC Test set forth in Dynamex (see here). Continue reading “Hit The Road, Jack: Uber Drivers are Independent Contractors According to NLRB”