Later this year, California Automobile Dealerships will get a decisive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court about a decades-old controversial issue. The issue is whether Service Advisors are exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Section 13(b)(10)(A) of the FLSA exempts “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers.”
On January 15, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would take the matter under consideration and will ultimately
Compensation for Training
If you are a California employer that uses interns, or provides training to individuals that could lead to employment, you run the risk of having these individuals qualify as “employees”. And with “employee” status, it may require you to comply with Labor Code requirements dealing with minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal and rest breaks.
The authority in this matter, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, also known as the Division Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), considers the following eleven factors when determining whether training time is
California Labor Code Section 2802 requires an employer to reimburse an employee for all necessary expenses or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, including driving expenses and cell phone use. The law further provides that the penalty for failing to reimburse an employee includes liability for the expenses plus interest, as well as attorney fees and costs incurred in obtaining reimbursement for unpaid wages. Employees can recover up to four years of un-reimbursed expenses.
In most cases, expenses can be easily calculated. However, driving expenses take in more than just
In Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enters., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Granting of Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
In April 2010, GlobalTranz hired Plaintiff Alla Rosenfield as Manager of Human Resources. The company promoted her later that year to Director of Human Resources and, in early 2011, to D
irector of Human Resources and Corporate Training.
Throughout her employment, Rosenfield lodged multiple oral and written internal complaints to her superiors that the company was not compliant with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and she repeatedly sought changes to attain statutory compliance. On May 31, 2011, GlobalTranz fired Rosenfield, and she filed a complaint, alleging that GlobalTranz and its executives had violated the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), and Arizona state law. The plaintiff alleged that GlobalTranz fired her for engaging in protected activity, that is, for complaining to other managers and to executives that GlobalTranz was failing to comply with the FLSA.
The district court granted summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on the FLSA claim. Even though the district court recognized that Plaintiff had “advocated consistently and vigorously on behalf of ․ GlobalTranz’s employees whose FLSA rights Plaintiff thought were being violated,” the district court held that she nevertheless was not entitled to the protections of § 215(a)(3) because she had not “filed any complaint” for purposes of that provision. Rosenfield voluntarily dismissed the state-law claim, the court entered a final judgment, and a timely appeal followed.
In 2012, the California Supreme Court decided an important meal and rest break case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. The question of whether employers must ensure breaks are taken or must simply provide breaks has been a source of significant litigation in both federal and state courts.
The California Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Brinker’s favor on the most critical part of the decision – holding that employers do not have to ensure employees take their meal breaks. Once the meal period is provided, the employer is not obligated to police the meal breaks to
Did you know you are protected against pregnancy discrimination? The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits employers from treating a pregnant woman in an unfavorable way.
If a pregnant woman is unable to perform her regular job duties, the employee should be treated in the same way that the employer is expected to treat any other employee with a temporary disability. Unless it presents undue hardship for the employer, the employer should provide alternate job duties or modifications, disability leave, or leave without pay.
A woman who is pregnant must be allowed to
Sexual harassment in private businesses, government agencies, and labor organizations are prohibited by California and federal laws. Each incident of sexual harassment is different, and there are two main categories into which most cases fall — “quid pro quo” cases and “hostile work environment” cases.
If a supervisor portrays unwanted sexual behavior towards an employee, they may have committed “hostile work environment” sexual harassment. Although similar to “quid pro quo” sexual harassment, where a direct supervisor seeks sexual favors in return for something within the supervisor’s powers, hostile work environment sexual harassment is
As we covered in a previous blog post, the U.S. Supreme Court, or SCOTUS issued its decision in Young v. United Parcel Service on March 25, 2015. Young v. UPS addressed the extent to which employers must accommodate pregnant workers under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). SCOTUS held that an employer’s accommodations policy must not “impose a significant burden on pregnant workers” unless the employer has legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for implementation of the policy that are “sufficiently strong to justify the burden.”
In addition to remaining compliant with the PDA, employers must be mindful of
The California Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the number of consecutive days an employee may legally work without running afoul of the state’s so-called “day of rest” statute.
The Initial Claim – Mendoza v. Nordstrom
In 2009, Christopher Mendoza filed suit against his former employer, Nordstrom. Mendoza claimed the employer required him to work for more than six consecutive days without a day off, in violation of sections 551 and 552 of the California Labor Code, the so-called “day of rest” law. Section 551 provides that “every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to