Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
California minimum wageis currently $14.00/hour for larger employers (26 or more employees) and $13.00/hour for employers with 25 or fewer. The final 2016Senate Bill (SB) 3increase to $15.00/hour will occur on January 1, 2022 for larger employers and January 1, 2023 for the rest. SeeCalifornia’s Gradual Increases in Minimum Wage, to Reach $15.00 Per Hour by January 1, 2022(April, 2016).
California minimum wage is currently $14.00/hour for larger employers (26 or more employees) and $13.00/hour for employers with 25 or fewer. The final 2016 Senate Bill (SB) 3 increase to $15.00/hour will occur on January 1, 2022 for larger employers and January 1, 2023 for the rest. See California’s Gradual Increases in Minimum Wage, to Reach $15.00 Per Hour by January 1, 2022 (April, 2016).
The municipalities below have ordinances directing higher minimums than the current state standards, some with midyear increases as indicated. Most have a single rate for larger and smaller employers.
Employers must review the information for their location(s) and conspicuously post the current wage notice for each applicable jurisdiction, which can be downloaded through the links above.
Companies whose employees work in more than one location also need to be aware that different minimums may apply. A company with workers in two or more locations may find it simplest to apply the highest required minimum to all employees.
Some cities have different minimum wage laws for hotels. Effective July 1, those rates will be: Long Beach ($15.69); Santa Monica ($17.64) and City of Los Angeles ($17.64).
The UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education publishes regular updates.
See also:
For more information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
June 10, 2021
With certain exceptions for specific industries, occupations, and limited situations, CaliforniaLabor Code 512and theIndustrial Wage Commission Wage Ordersrequire employers to provide non-exempt employees with a minimum 30-minute off-duty meal break starting before the end of the fifth hour of work. Employers must provide a second off-duty minimum 30-minute meal break for shifts greater than 10 hours. (“Non-exempt” means not exempt from overtime pay.)
With certain exceptions for specific industries, occupations, and limited situations, California Labor Code 512 and the Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders require employers to provide non-exempt employees with a minimum 30-minute off-duty meal break starting before the end of the fifth hour of work. Employers must provide a second off-duty minimum 30-minute meal break for shifts greater than 10 hours. (“Non-exempt” means not exempt from overtime pay.)
“Off-duty” means the worker is relieved of all duties and free to leave the worksite during the meal period.
Unfortunately for business owners and management, employee lawsuits and Labor Board complaints containing a meal break deprivation claim have become a virtual epidemic over the past decade and more. A company facing such allegations may well also be at risk of many thousands in back wage and penalty liabilities.
An employer’s conscientious encouragement and promotion of meals is no protection or deterrent against such challenges if management has failed to take the simple – and vital – step of ensuring that workers clock out for the break and back in at break’s end. Without such documentation, a disgruntled former employee can be expected to push such a meal deprivation claim regardless of the truth.
On the other hand, time records routinely recorded and attested as accurate by the employee for each meal break provide solid evidence that violations did not occur. Best practice includes regular management review of such records for any omission and to promptly resolve the matter with the subject worker.
If the employee had forgotten to make the entries, then he/she should correct it personally or, with proper documentation, instruct payroll to make the adjustment.
Alternatively, if the employee missed one or more meals due to work demands on a given day (and not by personal choice), the employer will owe premium pay under Labor Code 226.7 for having caused the missed meal or meals.
Of course, employee-generated time entries can be by any number of systems – e.g., time clocks, via computer or cell phone apps, or even by hand-written notes — so long as they accurately furnish the date and all in- and out-times. Some computer systems enable explanation of why a meal break was missed, thereby electronically informing the employer whether it owes premium pay.
Of course, another good reason to keep such records is Labor Code 1174, requiring their maintenance and safe storage and permitting the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to “freely access” any company premises to inspect them.
See also:
For more information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
Tim Bowles
June 4, 2021
To level the playing field for those without access to workplace-based retirement plans, California is phasing in employer requirements to either: ● offer a retirement savings vehicle such as a401(k) plan; or ● facilitate employee access toCalSavers, a state-run savings program in the form of an automatic payroll deductionRoth IRA.
To level the playing field for those without access to workplace-based retirement plans, California is phasing in employer requirements to either: ● offer a retirement savings vehicle such as a 401(k) plan; or ● facilitate employee access to CalSavers, a state-run savings program in the form of an automatic payroll deduction Roth IRA.
Affected employers must register with CalSavers and comply with specified administrative duties (see Employer FAQs ).
Registration deadlines vary by business size:
Employers must not encourage or discourage employee CalSavers participation, relay investment or savings-related advice, or make/match any additional contributions.
If employees take no action within 30 days of receipt of their initial CalSavers paperwork, they will be enrolled under the current default saving rate of 5% of gross pay after tax withholdings. (See Employee Program Details). Employers must show these deductions on the worker’s itemized wage statement (see California Labor Code section 226(a)(4)).
There is no employer fee for program participation. However, affected employers who fail to register within 90 days of service of a noncompliance notice shall pay a $250 penalty for each eligible employee and, after 180 days, an additional $500 per employee.
For more information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Cindy Bamforth
June 4, 2021
With Memorial Day and July 4 approaching, California employers should review and, as needed, update their written holiday policies.
With Memorial Day and July 4 approaching, California employers should review and, as needed, update their written holiday policies.
California law does not require employers to provide or to pay for holiday time off.
However, for employers opting to offer holidays off, paid or unpaid, written policy should cover the scope of the benefit, including:
As holidays must be tied to a calendar event, policy should also correctly regulate any additional “personal” or “floating” holiday. Best practice can thus include: ● connect the additional paid day off to another specific event, such as the employee’s birthday or hire-date anniversary or to require the employee to take that time off within the same week as the event; and ● ensure the worker then actually takes that designated day off.
The Labor Commissioner FAQs offer additional detailed information including the effect of holidays on overtime calculations.
Take away: When a business opts to observe holidays, clearly and in writing state the rules and procedures in advance, separate from paid vacation, sick pay and other leave benefits.
For more information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Cindy Bamforth
May 28, 2021
Includes COVID-19 GuidelinesIncluding Vaccination
Includes COVID-19 Guidelines Including Vaccination
Clear, written workplace policies are critical components for workplace legal compliance and productivity. The volatile combination of COVID’s impact on workplace management and California’s lawsuit-prone reputation underscore the preventative importance of such written rules and protocols.
Updated for 2021, our comprehensive model employee handbook includes (but is not limited to):
Also updated for 2021, our model “Hire-to-Fire” forms include:
CONTACT US TO ORDER NOW
To order or for more information, contact Office Manager Aimee Rosales at 626.583.6600 or email her at officemgr@tbowleslaw.com.
May 28, 2021
With the blank slate of a coming new year come the resolutions. No matter the size of an operation, making sure a business has an adequate and up-to-date employee policy manual should be high on the list.
With the blank slate of a coming new year come the resolutions. No matter the size of an operation, making sure a business has an adequate and up-to-date employee policy manual should be high on the list.
A California workplace manual should include:
Depending on workforce size, best practices would also include written policy on:
Optional policies can include paid vacation, paid holidays, bereavement leave and of course many more.
Other Required Distributions: While not in the scope of a typical employee handbook, employers, depending on workforce size, must separately distribute policy and related forms on:
(re: continuing health insurance for a departing employee)
(re: continuing health insurance for a departing employee)
(a compliance survey mandated by federal law to support civil rights and prevent workplace discrimination)
Industry- and Operation-Specific Policies: Employers should also include industry- or operation-specific policies, e.g., affirmative action plans and/or specialized nondiscrimination programs for certain federal/state contractors and subcontractors; Affordable Care Act rules; policies consistent with collective bargaining agreements for union employees; and summary plan descriptions for any ERISA-covered retirement or health benefit plans.
Multistate Operations: Companies employing workers in multiple states should consider: ● distributing separate employee handbooks which comply with the laws of each such state; ● distributing one multi-state handbook with state-specific addenda; or ● applying the laws of the most restrictive state in which you have employees to all your company locations.
Hire-to-Fire Template Agreements and Forms: Sound practice also dictates a full set of updated hire-to-fire agreements and forms, including but not limited to job applications, employment agreements, "alternative dispute resolution" (mediation and arbitration) agreements, and many more.
See also:
Our firm offers updated template policies and forms and works regularly with clients on customizing such guidelines for particular operations.
To order or for more information, contact Office Manager Aimee Rosales at 626.583.6600 or email her at officemgr@tbowleslaw.com.
California businesses do not have to offer workers paid vacations. However, theLabor Code dictatesthat if implemented, such pay is an accrued or accruing benefit, prohibiting a “use it or lose it” plan.
California businesses do not have to offer workers paid vacations. However, the Labor Code dictates that if implemented, such pay is an accrued or accruing benefit, prohibiting a “use it or lose it” plan.
Since an employee continually earns the benefit as she/he works, a policy that simply provides a few weeks of paid vacation each year without limit could become a problem. For instance, a worker who hadn’t bothered taking his/her two-three weeks of paid vacation/year over a couple of decades could suddenly have over a year of pay coming upon termination or retirement.
A written paid vacation policy should thus specify a ceiling accrual amount (for example, 18 months of benefits) after which the employee cannot earn more until he/she utilizes at least some of the benefit already earned.
As a vacation benefit “accrues” or “vests” over a work year, the employer must pay an employee that proportion earned up to her/his departure date during that benefit year (in addition to any vacation benefit accrued but unused from prior years). A company that overlooks paying this pro-rated amount on a midyear termination or resignation could be subject to a “waiting time” penalty up to one month’s wages.
Labor Commissioner FAQs offer more detailed information including permitted earning limitations for new hires, employer rights to regulate vacation times, and much more.
Take away: If a business opts to offer it, management should take care to issue clearly stated paid vacation benefit rules and procedures. With its distinct characteristics, the policy should be separate from paid holiday, sick pay and other leave provisions.
See also,
Tim Bowles
May 21, 2021
Wisely, thefederalandCaliforniaworkplace anti-discrimination protections do not include ineffectiveness, ineptness, uselessness, or incompetence.
Wisely, the federal and California workplace anti-discrimination protections do not include ineffectiveness, ineptness, uselessness, or incompetence.
However, across the spectrum of personnel decisions – including recruitment, testing, hiring, pay scale, benefits, promotions, discipline and termination – management may not discriminate on any “protected classification.” In no particular order, the vast majority of California workers (including employees, interns, volunteers, and independent contractors) are shielded from such unequal treatment due to:
· the person’s (or his/her associate’s) age (40 and over),
· ancestry,
· national origin (including language use restrictions and use and possession of a driver’s license issued to persons unable to prove their legal presence in the U.S.),
· color,
· race and traits historically associated with race (including hair texture and “protective hairstyles” such as braids, locks and twists),
· religion or religious creed (including religious beliefs and observances and religious dress and grooming practices),
· gender (including gender expression and gender identity such as transgender or transitioning),
· pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and/or any related medical conditions,
· sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality),
· disability (mental or physical, including HIV and AIDS),
· requests for disability or religious accommodation,
· medical condition (including cancer or a related medical condition or genetic characteristics not presently associated with symptoms of disease),
· family care or medical leave,
· genetic information (including genetic tests, participation in clinical research or manifestation of disease),
· marital status (including registered domestic partner status),
· military or veteran status, and
· engagement in protected activity (whistleblowing).
The discrimination does not have to be direct or overt. Violations may be circumstantial, e.g., a discriminatory policy against older or disabled people by recruitment campaigns and ads for “active,” “dynamic,” or “energetic” candidates.
Management’s frontline protections against such claims should start – and will hopefully end – with sound policy, regular training and prudent practice.
See also,
For further assistance, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Tim Bowles
Helena Kobrin
May 21, 2021
Employees’ attorneys are increasingly relying on theCalifornia Private Attorney General Act(PAGA) to pursue businesses for Labor Code violations.
Employees’ attorneys are increasingly relying on the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) to pursue businesses for Labor Code violations.
Under PAGA procedures, an employee may file a private “representative” lawsuit – on behalf of her or himself and other “aggrieved” workers – to collect civil penalties where the state chooses not to pursue such claims. The bulk of any penalties assessed – 75 percent – goes to the state with the remainder distributed among the affected employees and a modest representative award to the plaintiff. PAGA also directs payment of the plaintiff attorney’s fees.
The law can produce staggering results. In Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (May, 2019), three PAGA violations affecting a portion of Walmart’s California employees yielded an award of $53,901,700.
The plaintiff asserted penalties for two pay stub violations under Labor Code 226(a).
First, while Walmart included hourly rates and hours worked as required on its bi-weekly pay stubs, it omitted this information on quarterly stubs for certain bonus and overtime compensation.
Though the plaintiff sought $131,427,750 in PAGA penalties on this violation alone, the court awarded “only” $48,046,000, finding that Walmart had operated on a reasonable belief it was complying with the law until the court ruled otherwise.
Second, the court directed Walmart to pay $5,785,700 for failing to list the inclusive work dates on final pay statements, even though Walmart included this information on later stubs.
The plaintiff did not personally experience a third alleged violation – for inadequately compensating non-compliant meal breaks – but still secured $70,000 in PAGA penalties for other employees who did. California courts allow a PAGA plaintiff to bring multiple claims even if he or she has not experienced all of them.
Walmart will survive these results even if it loses its pending appeal . No doubt there are many thousands of employers who would be unable to endure such PAGA challenges to workplace practices non-compliant with Labor Code standards.
PAGA has been criticized as law primarily benefiting the attorneys seeking its remedies. A recent report shows:
● PAGA plaintiffs receive an award average of $12,828;
● employees such plaintiffs represent receive an average $2,078 payout; while
● the average PAGA case attorney fee award is $405,724.
The attorney fee component of this Walmart case has yet to be resolved. It will likely be well in excess of that average, considering the number of that company’s California employees and the scope of the case. Walmart will have to pay those plaintiff’s attorney fees in addition to the undoubtedly enormous fees it is paying its own attorneys.
Take Aways: The specter of PAGA claims requires that California employers take extraordinary care to maintain all of their wage and hour practices in full compliance with the Labor Code. However, once the PAGA process starts, the non-complaint business, plaintiff employee and his/her co-workers are all losers in the game, with plaintiff lawyers standing to be the only real winners. Sacramento should question whether such results support any legitimate goal of government.
See also,
For further assistance, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
May 14, 2021