Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
While employers are barred by federal law from knowingly employing unauthorized immigrants, companies are also barred from treating any immigrant unfairly, whether or not authorized to work in the U.S.
While employers are barred by federal law from knowingly employing unauthorized immigrants, companies are also barred from treating any immigrant unfairly, whether or not authorized to work in the U.S. New California laws for 2014 provide the strongest anti-retaliation protections for immigrant workers in the country. This legislation penalizes employers who threaten to report the immigration status of an employee in retaliation for his/her exercising rights to complain over workplace conditions:
Employers should of course ensure their required I-9 procedures are in place. These new laws establish that businesses are prohibited from attempting to “leverage” any immigration or citizenship status to thwart a worker from complaining about wages or other workplace practices or conditions or to punish an employee for having done so. Worker complaints over such practices or conditions should be fielded and resolved thoroughly and professionally. Employers should ensure supervisors refrain from making any threats to use a worker’s immigration status against him or her.
For more information concerning an employer’s obligations under California or federal employment laws, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles or Cindy Bamforth.
6 Feb 2014
On January 1, 2014, San Francisco enacted a “right to request” ordinance which gives certain employees working in the City the right to seek flexible work arrangements to address family needs.
On January 1, 2014, San Francisco enacted a “right to request” ordinance which gives certain employees working in the City the right to seek flexible work arrangements to address family needs. The City has since amended the law to apply to employers with 20 or more employees anywhere.
The ordinance permits workers employed within the city limits for at least six months and eight hours per week to request scheduling accommodation to assist with caregiving responsibilities for: (i) children under the age of 18; (ii) family members with a serious health condition; or (iii) parents age 65 or older.
The employer must meet with the requesting employee within 21 days and respond within 21 days of that meeting. If the employer denies the request, it must explain to the worker in writing the business reasons for the decision as well as specify that employee’s rights to request reconsideration. Legitimate reasons for a denial include the cost of the proposed change, the detrimental effect on customer/client demands, inability to organize work among other employees, or lack of available work during the proposed work time.
The ordinance also makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or otherwise take adverse employment action against any person on the basis of caregiver status, in retaliation for exercising rights protected under the Ordinance, or for cooperating with the City in enforcement.”
Employers with work sites in San Francisco need to post the ordinance’s official notice and should consider modifying their applicable employment policies.
February 6, 2014
We are extremely pleased to announce that Helena Kobrin is now “of counsel” to our firm.
We are extremely pleased to announce that Helena Kobrin is now “of counsel” to our firm. Helena was admitted to The Florida Bar in 1978, first specializing in transactional and commercial matters, as well as governmental regulation and real estate and probate work.
Helena was then in-house attorney for several years for a large non-profit organization in Florida. Moving to the Los Angeles area, joining the State Bar of California in 1991, and as partner in the Bowles & Moxon and then Moxon & Kobrin firms, Helena has since worked extensively on copyright, trademark and trade secret issues, contract review and drafting, bankruptcy, litigation, dispute resolutions, and much more.
Starting in the 1990s, Helena was instrumental in establishing protections for copyrights and trademarks from Internet abuse. This included representation of plaintiffs in the first-ever copyright infringement suit over unauthorized online postings. That case led to the passage of federal law that requires service providers to help copyright owners remove infringements from websites . The law in turn protects service providers proactive in removing such unauthorized uses of copyrighted material online.
Helena’s 35 years of experience is now available to assist us and our clients in all of her various areas of practice. We are of course very happy with this significant expansion of services now available to our clients.
For more information or to consult with Helena, contact Ray Loomis at 818-583-6600.
January 16, 2014
The IRS issues annually its optional standard mileage reimbursement rates for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle. The IRS has decreased the rate from 56.5 in 2013 to 56 cents per mile in 2014.
The IRS issues annually its optional standard mileage reimbursement rates for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle. The IRS has decreased the rate from 56.5 in 2013 to 56 cents per mile in 2014.
The government calculates the mileage rate by an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile.
Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers must fully reimburse employees for all work-related expenses actually and necessarily incurred. Many employers choose to use the IRS mileage reimbursement rate to satisfy their reimbursement obligation.
If the employee can show the IRS reimbursement rate does not cover all of his/her actual and reasonable business-related vehicle expenses, however, the employer must pay the difference.
For more details on required reimbursements to employees for business purposes, visit www.IRS.gov.
January 2, 2014
California’s $8.00/hour minimum wage will continue its pace as one of the highest in the nation; rising to $9.00/hour on July 1, 2014, and to $10.00/hour on January 1, 2016 .
California’s $8.00/hour minimum wage will continue its pace as one of the highest in the nation; rising to $9.00/hour on July 1, 2014, and to $10.00/hour on January 1, 2016. In approving the recent legislation, Governor Brown stated, “This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy.”
Washington State currently has the highest minimum nationally, at $9.19/hour, adjusted annually based on the consumer price index (due to increase to $9.32 January 1,2014). California currently ranks 5th highest in the country. State minimum wage rates range down to Georgia and Wyoming at the bottom, matching the federal minimum level of $7.25/hour. That federal minimum did not increase for 20 years, from 1997 to 2007. Congress not expected to raise it again in the foreseeable future.
On its face, any rise in minimum wage would not appear to pose any significant burden. A 2012 Federal Department of Labor Survey found only 1.6 million workers paid at that level, some 2.1% at the national labor force.
Nevertheless, California employers should note additional costs indirectly created by a rise in the “wage floor.” Increased minimum wage levels will tend to push up other hourly wage rates for companies that want to keep pace at some proportion above the minimum. Higher wage rates lead to higher payments on employment taxes as well as workers’ compensation premiums.
The scale of such impacts depends of course on the size of a business’s payroll. Particularly for large employers, an increase in wage levels is all the more reason to ensure all wage and timekeeping practices are in full compliance with applicable federal and state laws.
For example improperly calculated overtime, faulty procedure on meal and rest periods, or substandard clock-in and clock-out systems and rules can create expensive challenges, in the worst case from a claimed class of numerous workers allegedly affected across-the-boards.
For information concerning wage levels and related workplace practices, as well as model employee policies and forms, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles or Cindy Bamforth.
Our articles “ Caring for Caregivers ” and “ Private Household Workers in California ” caution that misunderstandings about California’s rules for household employees can be expensive.
Our articles “Caring for Caregivers” and “Private Household Workers in California” caution that misunderstandings about California’s rules for household employees can be expensive. California’s Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (DWBR), effective January 1, 2014, drives home the need to properly pay the wages and to comply with the hours and working conditions requirements for certain household occupations.
The DWBR entitles nannies and other caregivers to overtime pay.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, the author of the new law, states, “Domestic workers are among the most isolated and vulnerable workers in the state. Historically, domestic workers who cared for property were given full wage and hour protections but those who cared for human beings were not. Personal attendants in California were excluded entirely from overtime coverage under [existing law].”
California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) regulates the wages and hours of workers through a series of “Wage Orders.” Wage Order 15 covers employees engaged in so-called “household occupations,” services related to the care of people or premises in a private household.
Under Wage Order 15, “personal attendants” include nannies, babysitters and certain caregivers who work in a private household to supervise, feed, or dress a child or a person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability, or mental deficiency needs supervision. (Wage Order 15 vaguely directed that “personal attendant” status only applies when “no significant amount of work” outside of such caregiving duties was required. The DWBR now specifies that “no significant amount of work” means that work other than “supervising, feeding or dressing” does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked.)
Wage Order 15 excluded such personal attendants, including live-in workers, from receiving overtime. Beginning January 1, 2014, the DWBR overrides that wage order, providing that personal attendants “shall not be employed more than nine hours in any workday or more than 45 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek.”
This new law will be temporary, ending in 2017 if the Legislature fails to extend them.
The DWBR does not cover, among others, the employer’s close family members; babysitters who are under 18 or casual babysitters (i.e. someone who babysits a minor child on an irregular or intermittent basis and whose vocation is not babysitting).
Improperly calculated overtime and substandard clock-in and clock-out systems and rules can create expensive challenges. Thus, personal attendant employers should take action including:
For more information concerning an employer’s obligations under California or federal wage and hour laws, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles or Cindy Bamforth.
Our articles “Caring for Caregivers” and “Private Household Workers in California” caution that misunderstandings about California’s rules for household employees can be expensive.California’s Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (DWBR),effective January 1, 2014, drives home the need to properly pay the wages and to comply with the hours and working conditions requirements for certain household occupations.
Our articles “Caring for Caregivers” and “Private Household Workers in California” caution that misunderstandings about California’s rules for household employees can be expensive. California’s Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (DWBR), effective January 1, 2014, drives home the need to properly pay the wages and to comply with the hours and working conditions requirements for certain household occupations.
The DWBR entitles nannies and other caregivers to overtime pay.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, the author of the new law, states, “Domestic workers are among the most isolated and vulnerable workers in the state. Historically, domestic workers who cared for property were given full wage and hour protections but those who cared for human beings were not. Personal attendants in California were excluded entirely from overtime coverage under [existing law].”
California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) regulates the wages and hours of workers through a series of “Wage Orders.” Wage Order 15 covers employees engaged in so-called “household occupations,” services related to the care of people or premises in a private household.
Under Wage Order 15, “personal attendants” include nannies, babysitters and certain caregivers who work in a private household to supervise, feed, or dress a child or a person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability, or mental deficiency needs supervision. (Wage Order 15 vaguely directed that “personal attendant” status only applies when “no significant amount of work” outside of such caregiving duties was required. The DWBR now specifies that “no significant amount of work” means that work other than “supervising, feeding or dressing” does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked.)
Wage Order 15 excluded such personal attendants, including live-in workers, from receiving overtime. Beginning January 1, 2014, the DWBR overrides that wage order, providing that personal attendants “shall not be employed more than nine hours in any workday or more than 45 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek.”
This new law will be temporary, ending in 2017 if the Legislature fails to extend them.
The DWBR does not cover, among others, the employer’s close family members; babysitters who are under 18 or casual babysitters (i.e. someone who babysits a minor child on an irregular or intermittent basis and whose vocation is not babysitting).
Improperly calculated overtime and substandard clock-in and clock-out systems and rules can create expensive challenges. Thus, personal attendant employers should take action including:
For more information concerning an employer’s obligations under California or federal wage and hour laws, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles or Cindy Bamforth.
California’s $8.00/hour minimum wage will continue its pace as one of the highest in the nation; rising to$9.00/hour on July 1, 2014, and to $10.00/hour on January 1, 2016. In approving the recent legislation,Governor Brown stated, “This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy.”
California’s $8.00/hour minimum wage will continue its pace as one of the highest in the nation; rising to $9.00/hour on July 1, 2014, and to $10.00/hour on January 1, 2016. In approving the recent legislation, Governor Brown stated, “This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy.”
Washington State currently has the highest minimum nationally, at $9.19/hour, adjusted annually based on the consumer price index (due to increase to $9.32 January 1, 2014). California currently ranks 5th highest in the country. State minimum wage rates range down to Georgia and Wyoming at the bottom, matching the federal minimum level of $7.25/hour. That federal minimum did not increase for 20 years, from 1997 to 2007. Congress not expected to raise it again in the foreseeable future.
On its face, any rise in minimum wage would not appear to pose any significant burden. A 2012 Federal Department of Labor Survey found only 1.6 million workers paid at that level, some 2.1% at the national labor force.
Nevertheless, California employers should note additional costs indirectly created by a rise in the “wage floor.” Increased minimum wage levels will tend to push up other hourly wage rates for companies that want to keep pace at some proportion above the minimum. Higher wage rates lead to higher payments on employment taxes as well as workers’ compensation premiums.
The scale of such impacts depends of course on the size of a business’s payroll. Particularly for large employers, an increase in wage levels is all the more reason to ensure all wage and timekeeping practices are in full compliance with applicable federal and state laws.
For example improperly calculated overtime, faulty procedure on meal and rest periods, or substandard clock-in and clock-out systems and rules can create expensive challenges, in the worst case from a claimed class of numerous workers allegedly affected across-the-boards.
For information concerning wage levels and related workplace practices, as well as model employee policies and forms, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles or Cindy Bamforth.
Beginning on January 1, 2014,California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)will protect an individual’s “military and veteran status” against employment discrimination and harassment.
Beginning on January 1, 2014, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will protect an individual’s “military and veteran status” against employment discrimination and harassment.
This new FEHA provision defines military and veteran status as “a member or veteran of the United States Armed Forces, United States Armed Forces Reserve, the United States National Guard, and the California National Guard.”
Administered by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), FEHA also protects race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 or over), and several other individual characteristics or life conditions from such workplace mistreatment. Employment discrimination laws are intended to ensure employers make personnel decisions on the basis of ability and performance and not on factors recognized as irrelevant to the conduct of business or management of personnel.
California’s regard for military and veteran status is distinct from the other protected classifications as FEHA specifically reserves the right of employers to ask applicants for any military service and to give preference to those who served or who have served in the military.
FEHA’s anti-discrimination provisions extend to any business regularly employing five or more persons FEHA’s anti-harassment provisions cover any business regularly employing one or more persons or receiving the services of one or more independent contractors.
For more information concerning an employer’s obligations under federal or California discrimination laws, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles or Cindy Bamforth.