COVID-19 Alert   We have changed our procedures for COVID-19.   Learn More
What to consider when laying off employees due to COVID-19. Learn More

  • Do I Have to Pay Employees When They are Sleeping?

    UPDATE:

    The California Supreme Court granted review of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. in the fall of 2013.  Until the Supreme Court issues its decision, employers may not be able to rely on the sleep time rules stated below.  If you have questions about your work situation, contact an attorney familiar with California’s overtime requirements.

    To some, this question may seem simple, but the answer may surprise you.  Generally speaking, an employer must compensate an employee for all “hours worked.”  In California, most wage orders define “hours worked” as, “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time that the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”  This means that if I require my employee to be at the work site, the employee is under my control and therefore I am likely required to pay the employee.  Even if she is sleeping on the job.

    How does this general rule play out in jobs where an employee is required to be at the work site 24 hours a day?  There are a host of occupations that require a presence 24-hours a day, even if the employee is not actually performing work the whole time.  Caregivers (e.g., personal attendants), ambulance drivers, guards, and ship workers are just a few examples.  One option would be to split the 24-hour shift among several workers, and pay all workers for all hours they are required to remain on the premises.  At minimum wage ($8.00 per hour in California), this means an employer will have to pay at least $192.00 per day, and usually employ three different employees each day, just to meet the minimum wage requirements.

    Some employers choose to deduct 8 hours from the employee’s working hours as “sleep time” or as “on-call” time.  Federal regulations clearly allow an employer to deduct 8 hours from the employee’s hours worked in certain situations.  But California oftentimes does not follow the federal regulations.  A recent case, Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., may provide some guidance.

    CPS provides on-site security guards at construction sites.  The company provides a trailer with full amenities (e.g., bed, bathroom, kitchen, internet, tv, etc.) and the guard is required to live on the premises.  Monday through Friday, the guards are on active patrol 8 hours during the day (5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.), and must remain on the premises at night.  On the weekends, the guards are on active patrol 16 hours during the day (5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.), and must remain on the premises at night.  The guards can technically leave the premises at night, but they have to notify the employer ahead of time so the employer can schedule a relief guard, and the guard has to carry a pager and be able to report back to the site within 30 minutes.

    The employer and employees had written “On-Call Agreements,” specifying that the guards were free to engage in their own personal pursuits during the evening, so long as they remained on the premises.  If the guard responded to an incident during the night, the guard would be paid for the time spent responding to the incident. Otherwise, so long as the guard received at least 5 hours of uninterrupted “sleep time,” the guard would not be paid for the on-call period.  Mendiola sued CPS on behalf of himself and other similarly situated guards, alleging the guards should have been paid for all hours spent at the work site because they were subject to the employer’s control.

    Unsurprisingly given past court decisions, the court determined that the time spent on site was compensable “on-call” time.  The significant restrictions placed upon the employee combined with the fact that the employee’s presence on site was primarily for the benefit of the employer meant the employer was required to pay the employee for all hours spent at the site.

    The court went on to say that when the employees worked a 24-hour shift (e.g., weekend shift), the employer could deduct 8 hours for the time the employee spent sleeping.  This is surprising because, with the exception of wage order 5 (which has a different definition of “hours worked” for employees that are required to reside on the premises, and for certain other exceptions such as ambulance drivers and attendants), there is no applicable statutory or regulatory exception for sleep time.  After concluding that the federal regulations were not appropriate authority upon which to analyze the “on-call” time, the court concluded it could follow federal regulations with regard to “sleep time.”  The court relied Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Service, Inc. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 16 and Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 361.  Although those cases revolved around different wage orders, both cases concluded that an employer could deduct for sleep time when an employee worked a 24-hour shift, provided the employee actually received the sleep time and the employer and employee agreed that the employee would not be paid for the time spent sleeping.  The Mendiolacourt went even further and concluded that the “sleep time” rule is applicable to all wage orders that have similar definitions of “hours worked.”

    We agree with the courts in Seymore and Monzon that because the state and federal definitions of hours worked are comparable and have a similar purpose, federal regulations and authorities may properly be consulted to determine whether sleep time may be excluded from 24-hour shifts. Further, we find this determination to be applicable to all wage orders that include essentially the same definition of “hours worked” found in Wage Order No. 9, including Wage Order No. 4.

    The court’s decision indicates an employer does not have to pay employees when they are sleeping if:

    1. The employee is working a 24-hour shift,
    2. The employee receives at least 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep time,
    3. The employee is provided a comfortable place to sleep, and
    4. The employer and employee enter into an agreement covering the sleep time.

    Based on the court’s decision, I have a few recommendations.  Do not assume that just because an employee has nothing to do means you don’t have to pay the employee.  You must pay employees for all hours worked.  If you have an employee working a 24-hour shift, you may be able to deduct up to 8 hours for sleep time, but you must have an agreement in place before the employee performs the work.  The agreement should be in writing, and preferably reviewed by an attorney familiar with wage and hour laws.

    I highly recommend speaking with an attorney to see whether your payroll practices comply with the law.

    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.

  • Are You Ready for the San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance?

    The San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance goes into effect on March 11, 2013.  Passed by voters during the last election, the new ordinance requires employers doing business in San Jose to pay a minimum of $10.00 per hour for any employee that works at 2 hours per week in San Jose.

    At first glance it might seem that the law only applies to businesses physically located in San Jose, but that is not accurate.  The ordinance defines an employer as:

    any person, including corporate officers or executives, as defined by Section 19 of the California Labor Code, who directly or indirectly through any other person, including through the services of a temporary employment agency, staffing agency or similar entity, employes or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee and who is either subject to the Business License Tax Chapter 4.76 of the Municipal Code or maintains a facility in the City.”

    The City’s perspective is that anyone carrying on or conducting business in San Jose is subject to the Business License Tax.  Even if your business is located outside of San Jose if you provide goods or services in San Jose you are an “employer” under the SJMWO.

    Not all employees working in San Jose are covered by the SJMWO.  Employees who are not otherwise entitled to payment of minimum wage under California minimum wage laws (e.g., outside salespersons, certain family members of the employer, etc.) are not “employees” under the SJMWO.  Additionally, the employee must work in San Jose at least 2 hours per week.

    In addition to paying the increased minimum wage, employers subject to the SJMWO must post the SJMWO poster in a conspicuous place.  You can download copies of the SJMWO poster here.

    The City has developed a list of FAQ’s that they hope to post on their website soon.  Unfortunately, there were a few errors in the FAQ’s that require revision, so we don’t know when the FAQ’s will be posted.

    The City has, or soon will, set up an enforcement mechanism for complaints regarding violations.  One of the benefits of the enforcement/complaint process is the ability to resolve the matter through early mediation or conciliation.  One of the drawbacks is that complaints do not need to be filed with the City agency and nothing prohibits an employee from pursuing a claim with the City and in court.

    As with many wage and hour statutes and regulations, an employee suing an employer for a violation of the SJMWO is entitled to recover his/her attorneys’ fees, but a successful employer is not able to recoup its attorneys’ fees even if the employer proves there was no violation.  The City hopes that its administrative process will allow the parties to resolve cases early without extensive litigation and that the attorneys’ fees, therefore, will not be a significant issue in resolving a case.  I’ll hold my opinion until I see the results.

    One of the concerns is that an employer who has a posting violation, for example, may be subject to a $50.00 per day per employee penalty (plus attorneys’ fees), if the employer fails to have the required posting in a conspicuous place.  The penalty begins from the date of the violation and continues until the violation ceases.  For example, if you have 5 employees that each travel to San Jose at least 2 hours per week and you fail to have the correct poster, you could face over $90,000.00 in penalties.

    Employers are also required to maintain payroll records, and to allow the City access to such records, for 4 years.

    Of course, employers may not discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising any of the rights under the SJMWO.

    Failing to understand and comply with the SJMWO may have devastating effects on your business.  Every employer and every employee should become familiar with the SJMWO so they can understand their rights, remedies, and responsibilities.

    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, a 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.

  • Brown Vetoes Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB 889)

    On September 30, 2012, Governor Brown vetoed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB 889).  The governor’s veto message indicates, among other things, the bill raised too many unanswered questions about what “economic and human impact on the disabled or elderly person and their family of requiring overtime, rest and meal periods for attendants who provide 24 hours care.”  Governor Brown apparently felt that we should answer some of those questions before mandating a change in the law.  He seemed particularly troubled by the fact that the bill required the Department of Industrial Relations to find answers to the question and come up with regulations at the same time.

    I think the veto was a good move for now.  Let’s gather the facts and consider the impact of a law before we change it.

    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.

  • Recent Article in ACBA L&E Section Newsletter: Department of Labor Proposes Change the Companion Exemption

    If you missed some of my prior posts talking about proposed modifications to the FLSA regulations regarding “companions,” I wrote an article for the Alameda County Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Law Section Newsletter.  The issue came out in May, but somehow it passed under my radar until I was searching for new information on the topic and came across the article.

    You can download a copy of the article at the ACBA L&E Section website.

    If you, or someone you know, works in the home care industry, I highly recommend reviewing the article.

    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.

  • Recent Article Reveals Long Delays at State Labor Commissioner’s Office

    A recent article from the Los Angeles Daily Journal (Vol. 125 No. 057, March 23, 2012) reports “Wage claims get uneven treatment, records show.”  According to the article, data obtained through a Public Records Act request and interviews with lawyers representing business and workers reveals significant delays.

    State law requires the Labor Commissioner to conduct its hearings within 120 days after filing.  The Daily Journal’s analysis shows that 11 of the 16 regional offices did not meet that obligation in 2011.  Different offices report different average waiting periods, with Oakland showing the worst results: over 400 days to get to a hearing.  Santa Rosa, on the other hand, gets its cases to hearing within 85 days.  San Francisco heard its cases within 301 days on average.  San Jose averaged approximately 275 days to get to a hearing.

    The study did not discuss how long it takes for a decision to get mailed after the hearing.  By law, the decision is supposed to be written within 15 days after the hearing.  In my experience, however, it often takes several months to receive the actual decision.  This sometimes means a case can take between one to two years to resolve if filed with the Labor Commissioner.  Cases take even longer if they are then appealed to superior court for a trial de novo.

    Budget cutbacks and state-mandated furloughs as well as an increase in claims filed are main causes of the long delays.  In some cases, the state assigns hearing officers from other jurisdictions to help carry some of the load, and I’ve seen an improvement in the speed with which cases proceed in the last few months, but there are still significant delays.  In many instances, a case can move more quickly through court than through the Labor Commissioner.

    The Daily Journal article also discusses perceived inconsistent rulings reported by several practitioners.

    When deciding whether to proceed with a Labor Commissioner claim, claimants should consider the length of time it will take to receive a decision.  Employers should realize that they may need to maintain records for a longer period than required by law so they can ensure they have appropriate evidence and witnesses by the time a hearing comes around.

    If you are contemplating filing a claim with the Labor Commissioner, or if you’ve recently been notified that a claim has been filed, I highly recommend speaking with competent counsel familiar with the Labor Commissioner and wage and hour issues.

    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.

    , San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • Court Clarifies Commission Case

    By the end of this year all commission agreements in California must be in writing.  When drafting or reviewing your commission agreement it is a good idea to keep in mind several issues; one of which is whether the commissioned employee is exempt from California’s overtime laws.  A recent court decision (Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions) addresses the basic requirements of the inside salesperson exemption.

    Let me start off by reminding you that there are two different possible sales-related exemptions under California’s overtime laws: inside sales persons and outside salespersons.  Outside salespersons are exempt under most, if not all, wage orders.  Inside salespersons are only exempt if the employment is governed by Wage Order 4 (professional, technical, clerical mechanical and similar occupations) or Wage Order 7 (mercantile industry).  If some other wage order applies then the inside salesperson exemption is not available.  There are several different distinctions between the inside salesperson and the outside salesperson exemptions that I hope to address in a subsequent article.  For now, I want to focus on a couple of key points discussed in the Muldrow case.

    Surrex Solutions Corporation locates and provides qualified candidates for employment to other companies.  Sometimes the candidates are hired directly by the customer and other times Surrex “rents” the candidate to the customer for a specified billing rate.  Surrex employees review open positions, research and locate qualified candidates, negotiate terms of employment/hiring with candidates and customers, and obtain orders from customers for the candidates.  The Surrex employees are paid a percentage of any placement/hiring fees when the customer hires the candidate directly, and a percentage of the adjusted gross profit for candidates retained on a consultant basis.  Tyrone Muldrow, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, filed a class action against Surrex claiming he was entitled to overtime.  The trial court and the appellate court rejected the claim and determined Muldrow was exempt from California’s overtime laws under the inside salesperson exemption.

    The court emphasized several earlier cases distilling the necessary criteria for the inside salesperson exemption:  “First, the employees must be involved principally in selling a product or service, not making the product or rendering the services.  Second, the amount of their compensation must be a percentage of the price of the product or service.” (quoting Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co (1990) 20 Cal.4th785)

    In addressing the first issue (i.e, was the employee involved principally in selling a product or service), the court reduced Muldrow’s job to its essence: Surrex employees would offer a candidate’s services to a client in exchange for a payment of money from the client to Surrex.  Although there was some discussion regarding duties leading up to the consummation of the sale, all of those duties were part of the selling process and therefore the employees were “involved principally in selling a product or service.”

    As to the second issue, the employees conceded that they were paid a percentage of the price of the product for the direct hires, but claimed that since the amounts paid on the non-direct hire cases was not based on the gross price of the product or service, it was not a commission.  The court had no trouble rejecting this argument.  Nothing indicates the percentage must be based on the gross price versus an adjusted gross or net price.  The court similarly rejected the employees’ argument that the commission plan should be rejected because it was “too complex.”

    An interesting issue that was not addressed by the court (and possibly not raised by either side) was the fact that the commissions are calculated by taking the gross profit then deducting ordinary costs of doing business in order to calculate the commission.  There has been discussion for some time regarding the extent to which an employer can use the ordinary costs of doing business in the calculation of bonuses, commissions and profit-sharing agreements.  The California Supreme Court has flip-flopped on the issue at least once.  The latest rule is that, at least with respect to managerial profit sharing plans, an employer can calculate a profit sharing plan using profitability which necessarily includes the ordinary costs of doing business.  Under Muldrow, it would appear an employer can also calculate a commission based on the ordinary costs of doing business (e.g., overhead, employee costs, benefit costs, etc.)

    Commission plans can be simple or they can be complicated.  Even simple commission agreements need to carefully consider a number of factors.  Now that California law will require all commission agreements to be in writing and provided to the employee, it is extremely important for you to review and understand your commission arrangement.  If your plan is not in writing, now is the time to start working on it with a knowledgeable professional.  And don’t forget to consider any possible overtime ramifications!

    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.

  • For Whom No Bell Tolls

    OK, maybe this case is only interesting to those of us Wage and Hour nerds, but Harris v. Superior Court could be hailed as the final nail in the Bell case trilogy.  Although this post may include more information about how sausage is made than you ever wanted to know, the Court’s decision could curtail a fairly significant number of overtime lawsuits.

    The Bell cases are  three  decisions that the Supreme Court issued regarding whether claims adjusters working for Farmers Insurance Exchange were exempt from California’s overtime requirements.  The cases were important because the court used the production/administration dichotomy to find the adjusters did not meet the administrative exemption test.

    The production/administration dichotomy distinguishes between administrative employees primarily engaged in “administering the business affairs of the enterprise” and production employees primarily engaged in “producing the commodity or commodities, whether goods or services,” that were the focus of the enterprise.  Despite the fact that Bell specifically held that the production/administration dichotomy is not useful in every case, a lot of attorneys try to rely on the distinction as a simple way of determining whether an employee is exempt.

    In Harris, claims adjusters employed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation filed a class action seeking unpaid overtime.  The employer alleged the employees were exempt under the administrative exemption, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that “as a matter of law,” the claims adjusters could not be exempt.  The appellate court used the production/administration dichotomy and held the employees could not be exempt from California’s overtime laws.  The California Supreme Court disagreed and put a huge damper on further attempts to use the production/administration dichotomy as the sole basis for defeating a claimed exemption.

    Harris pointed out that Bell was decided based on pre-2000 regulations which did not clearly define the administrative exemption.  In 2000, the IWC amended the wage orders providing more details as to what activities qualify as exempt duties and specifically incorporated specific federal regulations.  Bell did not have the advantage of those regulations and therefore relied on the production/administration dichotomy absence clear direction from the legislature or the IWC.  Now that we have specific regulatory guidance, the production/administration dichotomy is even less useful.

    Perhaps the biggest death toll for Bell is the Supreme Court’s focus on the fact that Bell is really only applicable to pre-2000 cases.  While there may be a few pre-2000 cases still winding their way through the court system, I suspect there aren’t many of them left.

    It is also important to note that the Supreme Court did not say the claims adjusters were or were not exempt from overtime.  The court merely pointed out that the appellate court used the wrong test in determining whether the employees are entitled to overtime.  Correctly classifying employees is not easy, and you should seek the assistance of competent professionals before making a costly mistake.

    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.

  • Obama Directs DOL to Expand FLSA to Cover In-Home Care Workers

    “President Obama announces a new rule that will ensure in-home care workers are included in the same minimum wage and overtime protections afforded to other workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.”

    Last year the California legislature failed to pass legislation that would have added substantial burdens to families hiring home workers, including personal attendants or other in-home care providers.  President Obama is taking credit for newly proposed Department of Labor regulations modifying overtime and minimum wage requirements for in-home care workers.  The DOL previously attempted to make similar changes in 1993 and again in 2001, but those rules never became formalized.

    A copy of the currently proposed regulations can be downloaded here. To save you the time of having to read the 186-page document, I’ve summarized the proposed changes below.  The new regulations would not take affect until after the public is allowed the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.

    Current regulations provide an exemption from the FLSA for in-home companions.  Like babysitters, the in-home companions care for the elderly or infirm and are typically employed by the household or family as opposed to a third-party employer.  There are a number of regulations defining what a “companion” can or cannot do and still remain exempt from the overtime and minimum wage obligations of the FLSA.  The new regulations make it clear that a companion is someone who provides fellowship and protection, but does not perform general household work.  The legislative history uses the example of a neighbor who comes over to help with grandma or grandpa.

    Under the new regulations, an exempt companion can:

    • Occasionally help the elderly person get dressed or undressed, but this cannot be a part of the regular duties.
    • Occasionally assist the elderly person with grooming including combing and brushing hair, assistance with brushing teeth, applying deodorant or washing face/hands following a meal.
    • Assist the elderly person with using the toilet or changing diapers.
    • Occasionally driver the elderly person to appointments, but this cannot be a part of the regular duties (the regulations suggest the companion should typically accompany the elderly person using a taxi or public transportation).
    • Cook meals so long as the meals are going to be eaten by the elderly person while the companion is there (e.g., no more preparing a week of meals at a time) and is not to be eaten by other members of the household.
    • Do some “light laundry” for the elderly person (but not for others), which can include putting clothes in the washer or dryer and assisting the elderly person with putting away or folding the clothes.
    • Occasionally assisting with bathing, but this cannot be a part of the regular duties.
    • Provide reminders of medical appointments or a predetermined medicinal schedule (e.g., provide pills out of a presorted pill box)

    Under the new regulations a companion cannot:

    • Do household chores for the benefit of other household members.
    • Vacuum, wash windows, dust or other similar “housekeeping” chores.
    • Provide medical care such as changing bandages, taking vital signs, evaluating health or other diagnostic or medically-related tasks (pulse, blood sugar, respiration, temperature) – The DOL is requesting comments on whether companions should be allowed to apply band-aids.
    • Determine whether prescription medications need to be taken.

    The new regulations make it clear that third-party employers (e.g., agencies) cannot take advantage of the exemption.  Even if the if agency is a joint employer with the family/household member, the employee must received federal minimum wage and overtime.  The definition of what constitutes family or household member for the purposes of determining the employer includes “an individual who is a child, niece, guardian or authorized representative, housemate, or person acting in loco parentis to the elderly or infirm individual needing companionship or live-in services.”

    The new regulations also change the record-keeping requires for live-in domestic workers.  Currently employers can avoid formal pay records for domestic live-in domestic workers if the parties have an agreement setting forth the agreed upon work hours with notifications for any deviations from the standard hours.  The DOL has determined that such lax record-keeping is no longer sufficient, and that even live-in domestic workers will be required to turn in accurate records of the actual hours worked, and employers are required to maintain those records as specified in the Act.  It is my understanding that companions employed by the family/household, regardless of whether they are live-in companions or not, will not have to keep records of hours worked, but that is not entirely clear.  Companions employed by third-parties will have to keep accurate records of hours worked.

    If you are interested in submitting your comments to the DOL regarding the proposed changes, you will eventually be able to log onto http://www.regulations.gov and search for RIN 12350AA05.  When I searched for it today, it was not available, likely because the regulations are not yet ready for public comment.

    If you or someone you know uses, employs or works with companions or other domestic workers, familiarize yourself with the proposed regulations and submit your comments.

    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 Laws for Employers and Employees in 2012

    12/29/11 UPDATE

    The Labor Commissioner has drafted a template employers should use to comply with AB 469.  You can download the template here.

    The California legislature has been busy, and Governor Brown has penned his signature on several new laws impacting businesses and employees in California.  AB 469, the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011, is just one example.  Effective January 1, 2012, employers must provide new hires with the following information:

    • The employee’s rate or rates of pay;

    • Any applicable overtime rates;

    • Meal, lodging or other lawful allowances to be used against minimum wage;

    • The regular paydays;

    • The employer’s name and/or DBA’s used by the employer;

    • The employer’s main office or principal place of business address, and a mailing address, if different;

    • The employer’s telephone number;

    • The name, address and telephone number of the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier;

    • Any other information the labor commissioner deems material and necessary.

    With the exception of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, most of this information is typically included in a standard offer letter (something that I think is always a good idea).  Employers could be required to provide the same notice to existing employees if there is a change to any of the required policies.  The Labor Commissioner is devising a template employers can use, but that is not expected until mid-December at the earliest.

    The Wage Theft Prevention Act also increases a number of penalties, allows recovery of liquidated damages for minimum wage violations before the Labor Commissioner, increases several statutes of limitations and the length of time employers must retain wage records.

    If you employ any workers in California, contact your employment attorney to see how AB 469 will impact your business.

    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.

  • Commission Agreements Must Be In Writing

    On October 7, 2011, Governor Brown signed AB 1396 which amends Labor Code Section 2751.  Section 2751 currently requires an employer who has no permanent and fixed place of business in the state and who enters into a contract of employment involving commissions as a method of payment with an employee for services to be rendered within the state to put the contract in writing and to set forth the method by which the commissions are required to be computed and paid. An employer who does not comply with those requirements is liable to the employee in a civil action for triple damages.  This statute has been held invalid (see Lett v. Paymentech, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1999) 81 F.Supp.2d 992) because it applied only to out of state companies.  AB 1396 alters the statute and makes it applicable to all employers doing business in California.  AB 1396 also removes the triple damages clause.

    The new law requires:

    (a) By January 1, 2013, whenever an employer enters into a contract of employment with an employee for services to be rendered within this state and the contemplated method of payment of the employee involves commissions, the contract shall be in writing and shall set forth the method by which the commissions shall be computed and paid.
    (b) The employer shall give a signed copy of the contract to every employee who is a party thereto and shall obtain a signed receipt for the contract from each employee. In the case of a contract that expires and where the parties nevertheless continue to work under the terms of the expired contract, the contract terms are presumed to remain in full force and effect until the contract is superseded or employment is terminated by either party.

    Commission wages are compensation paid to any person for services rendered in the sale of such employer’s property or services and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof.  Under the modified statute “Commissions” does not include short-term productivity bonuses such as are paid to retail clerks; and it does not include bonus and profit-sharing plans, unless there has been an offer by the employer to pay a fixed percentage of sales or profits as compensation for work to be performed.

    There are no penalties associated with a violation of the newly worded statute, but it could be a basis for suit under California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

    If you pay your employees a commission, you must have the commission plan reduced to writing by January 1, 2013.  The contract must state the method of calculating the commission and how it is paid.  Employees must also receive a copy of the executed commission agreement.

    Commission plans can be simple or complicated, but many employers forget to include provisions in the commission agreement regarding when the commission is earned (versus when it is paid out), what conditions have to be met to earn the commission, and what happens to unpaid and/or unearned commissions when the employment is terminated.  Failure to consider and include such provisions can lead to costly litigation.

    If you have a commission plan at your work, review the plan with knowledgeable counsel to ensure the terms are clear and lawful.

    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.