• Robert Nuddleman to Present Seminars at PFAC 20th Annual Education Conference

    I’m excited to be able to work with the Professional Fiduciary Association of California next week at their 20th annual education conference San Francisco, CA.  PFAC is a wonderful organization that provides continuing education and promotes minimum standards in the administration of conservatorships, guardianships, trusts, estates and durable powers of attorney.  I’ve had the pleasure of working with several of their members and their clients to develop strategies for in-home care and assistance with elderly and disabled clients in conjunction with third-party care agencies.  I’m always impressed by their level of professionalism and commitment.

    In the past, I’ve conducted seminars for PFAC regarding the difference between independent contractors and employees, how to employ caregivers correctly, and employment law updates.  This year, I will be co-presenting a 3-hour intensive seminar called: Hiring, Employing, Supervising, and Disciplining Workers.  I will also conduct a breakout session about Workplace Policies and Procedures for Caregivers where I can share some tips regarding caregiver rights and employer responsibilities.  This year’s conference will also include roundtable discussions for a more direct educational experience, where I will discuss how to handle workplace performance and discipline issues.

    I’m really looking forward to this year’s conference.  If you are attending the conference, please look for me and say, “Hi.”

    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.

  • 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.

  • Interesting Article Regarding New Regulations Regarding Homecare

    The New York Times ran an blog article regarding an interview with Select Home Care regarding ways some employers are considering to survive recently enacted and currently pending changes regarding in-home care.  The implementation of AB241 requiring overtime for caregivers in California and soon-to-be-imposed federal regulations requiring overtime for caregivers throughout the nation have employers scrambling to consider how they can keep in-home care affordable and profitable.

    The article suggests three alternatives employers are considering:

    1. Raise rates to cover the increased costs, which will mean fewer people will be able to afford in-home care.  Raising the costs will not increase the profit margins, but will result in fewer clients which means companies will have to do more with less.  Companies could hire more workers so the employees each work less hours, but that will reduce the employee’s income and require more managers to oversee the work.  This doesn’t result in more money for the workers, but could help keep the cost to the client down.
    2. Switch employees to independent contractors.  The article makes it seem like this is a viable option, but I have serious doubts this will be an effective solution.  Particularly in California where there are hefty fines for willfully misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor, and given the broad definition of “employer,” under AB241, I don’t recommend this course of action in most cases.
    3. Change the business model to a referral agency.  Referral agencies do not employ the workers, but can still help families locate and hire quality workers.  This could lower the costs for the families because they are not having to pay the profit margins for the caregivers, but it comes with its own sets of risks.  Most likely, the family will become the employer, which means the family needs to understand and comply with the myriad of laws impacting employers and employees.  This can be a daunting concern.

    The article quotes a few other industry professionals, and most seem to agree that the first option (raising prices to cover the costs) is the safest route.  I agree.  Hiring more caregivers, each working fewer hours, will help keep the costs down, but can impact the continuity of care.  This is particularly important for clients with Alzheimer’s or dementia.  Instead of having one worker working a 24-hour shift, you’ll end up with two to four workers working shorter shifts.  Financially this is the best option.  I don’t know if this will be the best option for providing quality care to the elderly and disabled.

    Governor Brown (CA-D) has taken the position that the best way to deal with the increasing costs is to limit the number of hours the employees work.  That is why his budget proposal does not allow caregivers under the state’s In-Home Support Services program to work more than 40 hours per week.  Of course, Governor Brown hasn’t indicated how the clients will care for themselves during the remaining 128 hours of the week.

    There is one last assumption in the article that bears addressing.  All of the sources seem to imply that they can deduct up to 8 hours of sleep time for 24-hour shifts.  Because the California Supreme Court granted review of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. in the fall of 2013, we cannot guarantee that an employer can deduct for sleep time.  While the federal regulations allow employers to deduct for sleep time, the issue has not been decided in California.  Employers in California that deduct for sleep time may run the risk of having to go back several years to pay for the uncompensated hours of work.

    The New York Times blog promises to do a follow-up with Select Home Care to check on their progress.  If you, or someone you know, uses or provides in-home care, you should speak with a knowledgeable employment attorney to understand the rights and obligations imposed by 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.

  • Is an Employer Responsible for Paying Overtime When It Does Not Know the Employee is Working Off The Clock?

    Possibly not. An employer is obligated to pay an employee for all hours worked. Most Wage Orders in California define “hours worked” as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

    Several federal court cases have held that “suffered or permitted to work” means only work that is performed “with the knowledge of the employer.” For example, in Forrester v. Roth’s I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc. (9th Cir. 1981) 646 F.2d 413, the court held that “where an employer has no knowledge that an employee is engaging in overtime work and that employee fails to notify the employer or deliberately prevents the employer from acquiring knowledge of the overtime work, the employer’s failure to pay for the overtime hours is not a violation of §207” Id. at 414. “An employer must have an opportunity to comply with the provisions of the FLSA.”

    The courts point out that an employer cannot escape responsibility by negligently maintaining required records or by turning its back on a situation, but if the employee “prevents the employer” from acquiring knowledge of the uncompensated overtime, the employer has not “suffered or permitted” the employee to work in violation of the FLSA.

    In May 2014, a California Court of Appeal applied this rule to claims under the California Labor Code. See, Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2014) 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 874. California courts often look to federal law in interpreting state wage and hour claims. Although the California Supreme Court implicitly endorsed the federal interpretation of hours worked in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (200) 22 Cal.4th 575, 585, the specific question presented in Jong was not addressed. At least one federal court decision (White v. Starbucks Corp (N.D.Cal. 2007) 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1083) applied the “no knowledge” rule to a California wage claim, but California courts are not required to follow federal interpretation of state laws. To my knowledge, Jong represents the first instance in which a California court specifically held that if an employer does not know an employee worked overtime, the employer is not liable for the unpaid overtime compensation.

    There are a number of key facts that allowed the court to conclude the employer had no knowledge of the off-the-clock hours. The plaintiff testified that he was aware that it was Kaiser’s policy to pay for all hours worked and to pay for all overtime hours employees recorded, even if an employee should or could have obtained pre-approval before working the overtime but failed to do so. The plaintiff also testified that he was familiar with the applicable time keeping rules and that he knew how to use the timekeeping system. The plaintiff also signed a document confirming he knew employees were not supposed to work off-the-clock. The nail in the coffin was the fact that the plaintiff testified he did not know whether anyone in Kaiser management was aware he was performing off-the-clock work. The two other named plaintiffs in the case had discussions with supervisors about working off the clock, and the court allowed those cases to proceed to trial.

    Jong emphasizes the importance of having policies that prohibit off-the-clock work and require employees to record all hours worked. The case also confirms the importance of ensuring the employer knows about all hours worked. If an employee is going to bring a claim for unpaid wages, the employee needs to ensure that a management employee knows the employee is working off-the-clock.

    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.

  • What’s the Deal with Alternative Workweeks?

    Some employees want to work longer hours each day in exchange for working fewer days per week.  These “alternative workweeks” are permissible, provided the employer follows prescribed methods of adopting and implementing the policies.  The most common alternative workweek situation allows employees to work four ten-hour days without receiving overtime.  Without the alternative workweek policy, the employee would be entitled to two hours of overtime every day. With a proper alternative workweek agreement, the employee can work the schedule without the employer incurring overtime pay.

    Many alternative workweek agreements are invalid because employers fail to follow the appropriate procedures for adopting the policy or they fail to notify the Labor Commissioner about the policy.  To be enforceable, an alternative workweek agreement must comply with the following:

    (1)           The employer must present a written schedule available for the employees (this can be one option or several options from which the employees can choose).

    (2)           Employees can submit alternatives to the employers options with the employer’s approval;

    (3)           The written schedule must specify the number of days and amount of hours offered (the actual days do not have to be specified);

    (4)           There must be at least two (2) consecutive days off during the week;

    (5)           If the employees elect an alternative workweek, they can switch between the various alternative workweeks offered by the employer;

    (6)           Each workday must consist of at least four (4) hours but not more than ten (10) hours;

    (7)           The employer must inform the employees what effect the alternative schedules will have on wages and benefits;

    (8)           If more than 5% of the workforce does not speak English, the notice of available schedules must also be in the language of that portion of the workforce;

    (9)           The employees must meet at least 14 days before they vote on the alternative workweek and the employees must be given advance written notice of the meeting;

    (10)        If all employees cannot attend a single meeting, the employer must hold multiple meetings;

    (11)        The employer must mail a copy of the disclosure to any employees who could not attend the meeting;

    (12)        The ballot must be all affected employees;

    (13)        The “affected employees” can be limited by division, department, job classification, shift, separate location or recognized subdivision of a work unit;

    (14)        The vote must carry by a 2/3 approval;

    (15)        The ballots must be confidential (i.e., no names or employee ID)

    (16)        The election must occur during work hours at the worksite;

    (17)        The vote cannot be used to retroactively allow an alternative workweek;

    (18)        The results of the election must be filed with the Labor Commissioner within 30 days of the election (do not send the ballots).  The results can be mailed to:

    Division of Labor Statistics & Research,

    Attn: Alternative Workweek Election Results

    P.O. Box 420603

    San Francisco, CA 94142

    (19)        The Labor Commissioner must receive the following:

    • Company name, phone, address and contact person;
    • Date of the election
    • Election results summary
    • Description of alternative workweeks from the election
    • Statement that the election was by secret ballot, written, and passed by a 2/3 vote

    (20)        The employer cannot require employees to work the new work hours for at least 30 days after the announcement of the final election results – The regulations do not appear to prohibit allowing an employee to work the alternative workweek if they voluntarily choose to do so.

    When deciding whether to adopt or offer an alternative workweek, the employer should consider:

    • What schedule(s) did you have in mind for the alternative workweek?  (i.e., hours, days, etc.)
    • Do you want to offer more than one option?  (i.e., four 9-hour days and one 4-hour day, plus four 10-hour days)
    • Will employees be able to choose not to work an alternative workweek?
    • Do you want to allow employees to submit alternatives to your options?
    • Will each employee get at least 2 days off?
    • What effect will the alternative workweek have on wages & benefits? (consider how vacation accrues, eligibility for health benefits)
    • What percentage of your workforce does not speak English? (if more than 5%, Notice of available schedules must be provided in their language)
    • Will all employees be able to attend a single meeting to discuss the proposed schedule? If not, how can all employees have a chance to meet?
    • Which employees will be “affected”?
    • How are you going to ensure the ballots are confidential? (use drop box and form)

    If an employer adopts an alternative workweek wherein the employee is scheduled to work ten hours per day and the employee actually works more than ten hours, the employer must pay one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of the alternative workweek schedule.  Additionally, if an employee works more days than scheduled under the alternative workweek agreement, the employer must compensate the employee at the overtime rate even if the employee works less than forty hours during the week. Employees are still entitled to double time for hours in excess of twelve hours per day.

    You can search the Labor Commissioner’s database for employer names to find out if the employer has registered a valid alternative workweek election.

    Phillip J. Griego & Associates
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
    East Bay 925-364-4655

    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

    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 Phillip J. Griego & Associates. 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 Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

    The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent 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.

  • Am I Entitled to Holiday Pay?

    With President’s Day coming up next week, I thought it would be a good time to answer and oft-asked question: Does the law require employers to pay employees for holidays?  In most cases, the answer is no.  Neither California nor federal laws require employers to pay employees for holidays, or to pay them a higher rate for holidays.  Some union contracts or public employment situations may require paid holidays, but otherwise it is up to the employer to decide whether it will offer paid holidays.

    If an employer’s policies provides for paid holidays, however, then the employer is required to pay employees according to the employer’s policies.  Some employers offer paid holidays or pay a higher rate on holidays because it is one way to reward employees who have to miss time with their family in order to help the company meet its deadlines.  Other employers realize that if they want to attract and retain qualified employees, you can’t make them work on Christmas Day without some sort of premium pay (I’m talking about you, Ebenezer!).

    Employer handbooks should identify the specific holidays the employer will observe (either by date or title), and explain whether employees will be paid a higher rate if they work on the holiday and the rate at which employees will be compensated for the holidays.  If you haven’t updated your handbook recently, now is an excellent time to review it with a qualified professional to ensure your policies are up to date.

    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.

  • New Year and New Laws

    A new year has come, and with it a slew of new laws affecting employers in California.  The courts and legislature were busy last year.  We created a short summary reviewing some of the more significant changes that will impact employers in 2014.

    Enjoy the reading, and we hope you have a great 2014!

    Located in San Jose, California, the employment law lawyers of Phillip J. Griego & Associates, provide quality legal representation for both the employee and the employer. The firm was founded by attorney Phillip J. Griego in 1987, and its employment law attorneys have over 50 years

    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.

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

  • FAQ’s Regarding California’s Caregiver Overtime Laws

    With the new overtime requirements under the newly enacted Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB241), I’ve received a lot of questions about how the law will impact caregivers and the families they serve.  Many employers and employees do not understand their rights and obligations.  Hopefully the following answers to some of the common questions I’ve been receiving will help clarify the law.

    Keep in mind, this is a newly enacted statute with some ambiguities.  Future cases or amendments could affect my interpretation of the statute.

    Q: My employer told me that they are reducing my pay rate so they can afford to pay overtime.  Can my employer do that?

    A: Usually, yes.  Most employees are employed “at-will.”  This means the employer or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without notice, and for any reason or no reason (except an illegal reason).  When an employer lowers an employee’s pay rate, the employer is effectively terminating the old employment relationship and offering new employment under the new lower rate of pay.   Your continued employment constitutes acceptance of the terms of the unilateral contract.  As long as the employer notifies the you of the new terms of employment (e.g., the new rate of pay), the employer can change the terms.  An employer may not retroactively alter the terms of the employment.

    Employers are supposed to provide employees a new Notice to Employee under Labor Code section 2810.5 whenever the employer changes the employee’s pay rate (or any other item included in the 2810.5 Notice to Employee).

    Q: Can an employer deduct the cost of room and board from an employee’s pay?

    A: Yes, if the employer provides meals and lodging to an employee, even if the meals and lodging are provided at the client’s site, an employer can deduct specific amounts for the meals and lodging as a credit against the employer’s minimum wage obligations.  The employer must have a written agreement, and can only deduct up to certain amounts specified in the wage order.  Generally speaking, the amounts an employer can deduct are fairly low, and are usually well below fair market value (For example, an employer can only deduct $2.90 for breakfast, $3.97 for lunch, $5.34 for dinner, and $37.63 per week for an unshared room), and the employee must actually receive the meals or lodging if the employer is going to use that as a credit against the employer’s minimum wage obligation.

    Q: Can I pay a caregiver a “daily” or “weekly” rate?

    A: You can, but you shouldn’t.  A daily or weekly rate is a salary.  The law says that a salary only compensates an employee for the “regular nonovertime hours” worked.   For a domestic work employee that qualifies as a personal attendant, this means the first 9 hours in a day or the first 45 hours in a week.  If you pay a worker a daily or weekly salary, you are not paying the employee for any overtime hours.  All caregivers should be paid by the hour and should be paid for all hours worked.

    Q: Can my employer deduct for sleep time?

    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.

    A: Under Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc, an employer can deduct for sleep time as long as:

    1. The employee regularly receives at least 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep;
    2. The employee is provided a comfortable place to sleep;
    3. The employer and employee agree (preferably in writing) that the sleep time is not compensable; and
    4. The employee works a 24-hour shift.

    If any of those factors are missing, the employer cannot deduct for sleep time.  Additionally, the employer can only deduct the actual number of rest time hours, up to a maximum of 8 hours per 24-hour shift.  So, if the employee only receives 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep, the employer can only deduct those 6 hours.  If the employee receives 10 hours of uninterrupted sleep, the employer can only deduct a maximum of 8 hours.

    As noted in the update above, Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. is currently under review and therefore an employer may not be able to avail itself of the sleep time rules.

    See my article for more detailed information.

    Q: If I work in San Jose, but the care agency that employs me is located outside of San Jose, am I still entitled to the San Jose minimum wage?

    A: Yes.  Certain cities, such as San Jose and San Francisco, have adopted their own minimum wage ordinances.  Any employees performing work within the geographical boundaries of the specified cities must receive the minimum wage set by the ordinances.  In San Jose, the minimum wage is $10.15 per hour.  In San Francisco, the minimum wage is $10.74 per hour.

    Q: My employer wants me to become an independent contractor.  Is that legal?

    A: Likely not.  There are a number of factors that determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, and the tests can differ from agency to agency.  Under the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, an employer includes anyone that exercises control over the employee’s hours, wages or working conditions.  It is hard to imagine a scenario where the caregiver has 100% control over his or her hours, wages and working conditions.  If you are working one day as an employee, and the next day as an independent contractor without any other changes, chances are you are really an employee.

    Q: I run domestic worker placement agency.  Do I have to comply with the new overtime laws?

    A: Not if meet the definition of a domestic work employment agency under Civil Code section 1812.5095.  See my article to see if you meet all of the requirements.

    Q: Which hours are counted toward the weekly overtime?  I work 12 hours a day, 5 days a week.  By the 4th day I’ve worked 45 hours.  Does that mean that the 5th day is all overtime?

    A: The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights uses the same, or substantially similar, language as other overtime statutes in defining which hours require overtime payments.  Cases interpreting those statutes make it clear you only count the regular hours worked towards the weekly overtime.  In other words, you only count the first 9 hours worked toward the weekly 45 hour maximum.  You don’t count the daily overtime hours toward the weekly maximum because the employer already paid overtime for the hours in excess of 9 per day.

    The following examples may help.

    Correct!

    M T W T F Total
    Total 12 12 12 12 12 60
    Reg Hrs 9 9 9 9 9 45
    OT Hrs 3 3 3 3 3 15

    Wrong!

    M T W T F Total
    Total 12 12 12 12 12 60
    Reg Hrs 9 9 9 9 0 36
    OT Hrs 3 3 3 3 12 24

    Hopefully these answers help. Each situation is unique.  The questions and answers provided above are for general information purposes only. If you have questions or concerns about your particular situation, contact an employment attorney familiar with wage and hour issues 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.

  • What Trust and Estate Attorneys Need to Know About Employment Laws in the Elder and Home Care Industries

    Robert Nuddleman will be speaking at the Silicon Valley Bar Association’s luncheon seminar on October 23, 2013.  We will be discussing recent legislative and regulatory changes that will impact people working in the elder and home care industries.

    Recent legislative changes and court decisions are changing the landscape for home care workers, companions, personal attendants and the people that employ them. New state and federal regulations will increase the cost of caring for elderly clients and family members in their own homes. Conservators, trustees, and family members are potential targets for unpaid wage claims under recently expanded definition of the term “employer.” In this brown bag, we will discuss the new expansive definition of “employer” and how it impacts trust and estate attorneys. We will discuss how proposed and newly enacted legislation will impact your clients’ bottom line, and what you and your clients can do to limit exposure to potentially costly employment law claims.

    The event will be held at the Hilton Santa Clara Hotel (4949 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California) from noon to 1:00.  Advanced registration is preferred, but you can also pay at the door.

    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 Limits Attorneys’ Fees in Wage and Hour Cases

    In many, if not most, wage and hour cases (e.g., unpaid overtime, minimum wage, commissions, bonuses, etc.), the employer can pay more in attorneys’ fees than what is allegedly owed in unpaid wages.  Under the “American System,” each side bears the cost of their own attorneys unless the contract or statute under which the lawsuit proceeds provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees.  In the employment law field, some statutes allow the prevailing party to recover their attorneys fees.  Other statutes only allow the prevailing employee to recover attorneys’ fees.

    The legislature uses one-sided attorneys’ fee provisions (i.e., only the employe can recover attorneys’ fees) to make it easier for employees to hire attorneys because the employee typically has less money than the employer, and the employee will need to hire an attorney on a contingency-fee basis.  By allowing the employee to recover attorneys’ fees, an attorney may be willing to handle “lower value” cases knowing she or he will recover her or his attorneys’ fees at the end of the litigation.  This creates an incentive for attorneys to take cases that are otherwise not economically feasible to prosecute.

    In an unpaid wage claim there are two different statutes that apply depending on whether the claim is for overtime/minimum or wages other than overtime/minimum wage.  Under Labor Code section 1194.2, in any claim for the recovery of unpaid minimum wage or overtime, only the employee can recover his/her attorneys’ fees.  The employer cannot recover its attorneys’ fees even if it proves it paid the employee correctly.

    Under Labor Code section 218.5, in any other claim for wages or benefits not covered by Labor Code section 1194.2 (e.g., non-overtime/minimum wage claims), the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees.  This means that if an employee sues the employer for unpaid commissions or bonuses and loses, the employee is responsible for the employer’s attorneys’ fees.

    Thanks to a new law signed by Governor Brown, the employer will soon be able to recover its attorneys’ fees under Labor Code section 218.5 “only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith.”  Proving “bad faith” is a very high standard.

    There is no exigency clause, so the amendment will take effect January 1, 2014.

    If you have a question about payroll practices, contact an attorney familiar with California’s wage and hour laws.

    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.