• Companies Will Be Responsible For Wages of Sub-Contractors

    Does your company use workers provided by other companies?  If so, your company may be liable for the other companies’ failure to pay wages or carry state-mandated workers’ compensation insurance.

    Governor Brown signed AB 1897, which adds Labor Code section 2810.3 effective January 1, 2015.  This new law requires a “client employer” to share with a “labor contractor” all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for all workers supplied by that labor contractor for the payment of wages and the failure to obtain valid workers’ compensation coverage.  In other words, if your company receives workers through a contracting agency, and that agency fails to pay the worker or fails to maintain valid workers’ compensation coverage, your company could be responsible for any unpaid wages or workers’ compensation claims.

    A “client employer” is a “business entity that obtains or is provided workers to perform labor within the usual course of business from a labor contractor.” A “client employer” does not include any of the following:

    (i) A business entity with a workforce of less than 25 workers, including those hired directly by the client employer and those obtained from, or provided by, any labor contractor.

    (ii) A business entity with five or fewer workers supplied by a labor contractor or labor contractors to the client employer at any given time.

    (iii) The state or any political subdivision of the state, including any city, county, city and county, or special district.

    A “labor contractor” is an “individual or entity that supplies workers, either with or without a contract, to a client employer to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business.”

    A “labor contractor” does not include specified nonprofit, labor, and motion picture payroll services organizations and certain 3rd parties engaged in an employee leasing arrangements.

    A “worker” does not include an employee who is exempt from the payment of an overtime rate of compensation for executive, administrative, and professional employees pursuant to wage orders by the Industrial Welfare Commission described in Section 515.

    The law does not prevent client employers and labor contractors from “mutually contracting for otherwise lawful remedies for violations of its provisions by the other party.”  In other words, the client employer can require the labor contractor to defend and indemnify the client employer in the event a worker sues the client employer, but the client employer can still be sued directly.  Labor contractors, client employers and workers may not waive any of the protections provided by Labor Code section 2810.3.

    There is no “opportunity to cure” provision, but a worker or his or her representative must notify the client employer of violations at least 30 days prior to filing a civil action against a client employer for violations covered by this section.  Neither the client employer nor the labor contractor may take any adverse action against any worker for providing notification of violations or filing a claim or civil action.

    The new law does not impose liability on a client employer for the use of an independent contractor other than a labor contractor or change the definition of independent contractor.

    The new law does not impose individual liability on a homeowner for labor or services received at the home or the owner of a home-based business for labor or services received at the home.

    If you use or supply sub-contractors, you will want to review and possibly revise your client and/or vendor agreements before the new year.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • DOL Delays Enforcement of Home Care Regulations, But Employees Are Still Entitled to Overtime

    Several states and agencies expressed concern over the new federal home care regulations that require overtime premiums for companions and other home care workers that become effective January 1, 2015.  The officials running medicare are concerned because the 15-month’s notice the DOL provided was insufficient to enable proper planning for the regulations.  Several senators petitioned the DOL to change course and abandon the revised regulations.  The DOL announced tuesday that:

    After careful consideration, the department decided to adopt a time-limited non-enforcement policy. This approach will best serve the goals of rewarding hard work with a fair wage while not disrupting innovative direct care services. For six months, from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, the department will not bring enforcement actions against any employer who fails to comply with a Fair Labor Standards Act obligation newly imposed by the rule. During the subsequent six months, from July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the department will exercise its discretion in determining whether to bring enforcement actions, giving strong consideration to the extent to which states and other entities have made good faith efforts to bring their home care programs into FLSA compliance.

    You can read the DOL’s full blog post here.

    I have  a couple of issues with the DOL’s position.  Telling employers that the DOL is not going to enforce the regulations could lead employers to believe they are not required to comply with the regulations.  This is simply not true.  While the DOL may choose not to enforce the regulations, the employees and employee groups can enforce the regulations. Employers that rely on the DOL’s lack of enforcement are still at risk, and can still be held liable for the unpaid overtime and liquidated damages.

    I am also concerned with the DOL’s position that between July and December 2015, the department “will exercise its discretion in determining whether to bring enforcement actions.”  Does that mean after December 2015 the department will no longer exercise discretion?  It’s kind of like a city changing the sped limit on your street and telling you, “we might enforce this, we might not.”  I don’t think this half-measure method makes sense.  If you’re going to change the law then change the law.  Don’t change the law and then tell people you might or you might not enforce it.  If you determine that enforcing the law is not a good thing, then consider changing the law again, or altering when the new law goes into effect.

    I will instruct my clients to follow the new regulations regardless of the DOL’s enforcement position.  You can bet eligible home care employees will sue employers that fail to pay overtime after 40 hours in week after January 1, 2015.

    If you have questions about the DOL regulations, the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights or how the new regulations will impact you, your family or your business, contact an attorney familiar with wage and hour laws in the elder care industry.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • New Law Expands Time Period for Liquidated Damages in Unpaid Minimum Wage Claims

    Governor Brown signed AB 2074, expanding the time frame within which an employee may bring a claim for liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2.

    An employee who receives less than the applicable state minimum wage is entitled to bring an action to recover the unpaid wages.  Typically, the employee can bring the claim any time within 3 years of when the wages were earned.  The employee may be able to expand the time frame to 4 years if the employee can establish the failure to pay minimum wage is also an unfair business practice under Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

    An employee can also bring a claim for liquidated damages “in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.”  AB 2074 amends Labor Code section 1194.2 to make it clear that “A suit may be filed for liquidated damages at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for wages from which the liquidated damages arise.”  The statute does not specify whether an employee could recover the liquidated damages going back 4 years under B&P section 17200, but I suspect they can’t, because a 17200 claim seeks “restitution,” not damages.

    The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2015.  The statute does not state whether it applies only to claims filed after January 1, 2015, or if a plaintiff can wait until January 1, 2015, to file the claim and take advantage of the new, longer statute of limitations.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.