Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Cindy was recently honored by host John Horn to speak on KPCC NPR’s“The Frame”on identifying and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This invitation came on the heels of herparticipation in the Women in Film’s panel discussing sexual harassmentin Hollywood.
Cindy was recently honored by host John Horn to speak on KPCC NPR’s “The Frame” on identifying and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This invitation came on the heels of her participation in the Women in Film’s panel discussing sexual harassment in Hollywood.
Produced by Southern California Public Radio, The Frame airs twice daily, covering current film, television, music and other entertainment topics. John’s format includes discussion of cultural headlines with leading professionals.
Cindy’s lively and informative radio segment touched on controversial “morality clauses” in employment, the advantages to live classroom-style harassment prevention training, and what employers should do to prevent workplace harassment.
The episode aired February 7, 2018 on FM 89.3 KPCC and is still available on their website.
Cindy and our office look forward to continuing to address timely legal topics of concern to employers.
In addition to sexual harassment prevention training and resolution of harassment, discrimination, retaliation and other workplace claims, Bowles Law also specializes in employer litigation defense, wage and hour law, trademarks and copyrights.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
February 15, 2018
See also:
Cupid’s Arrows are Flying (February, 2018)
Workplace Retaliation Again on the Rise (February, 2018)
Ten Top Reasons for Live Sex Harassment Prevention Training (September, 2017)
New Transgender Rights in The Workplace (July, 2017)
Expanding Policy and Notice Requirements to Protect Employees (June, 2017)
With sexual harassment allegations surfacing daily in the media, it’s not surprising that coworkers may be more hesitant to date each other. In the2018 CareerBuilder’s Annual Valentine’s Day survey, only 36% percent of workers reported having dated a coworker, a 10-year low.
With sexual harassment allegations surfacing daily in the media, it’s not surprising that coworkers may be more hesitant to date each other. In the 2018 CareerBuilder’s Annual Valentine’s Day survey, only 36% percent of workers reported having dated a coworker, a 10-year low.
Regardless, office romances remain a fact of life. With Valentine’s Day around the corner, employers should review their workplace romance policy to avoid potential relationship conflicts which may lead to allegations of sexual harassment, sexual favoritism, or discrimination.
As this is obviously a sensitive area, best business practice is to secure the guidance of experienced legal counsel. California employers may implement a policy that explicitly bans all workplace dating, or at least prohibits a supervisor from dating a subordinate. Alternately, to lessen the potential for claims of quid pro quo or hostile work environment harassment in the event an office romance was to sour, the employer may require a worker to transfer to another company division.
If the company permits dating in the workplace, it may require a couple to confirm the consensual nature of the relationship in writing, aka a “love contract.”
Properly drafted love contracts define the parameters of a romantic relationship while deterring privacy invasion claims against the employer. These agreements typically acknowledge the consensual, voluntary nature of the relationship; prohibit supervising one another or engaging in favoritism to the detriment of other workers; affirm compliance with the employer’s anti-harassment and discrimination policy; and require the couple to notify the employer if and when their personal relationship ends in order to prevent any post-relationship harassment or retaliation.
Live sexual harassment prevention training for the dating couple and all other employees further establishes appropriate standards to comply with and demonstrates the employer’s commitment to a harassment-free workplace.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Speaking Out Against Sexual Harassment (December, 2017)
Unlawful Retaliation Defined (September, 2016)
Is Your Harassment Policy California Compliant? (April, 2016)
Employer Zones Out (October, 2015)
Smokin’ Spuds Goes Down in Flames (October, 2015)
Discrimination and Retaliation Claims (May, 2014)
Cindy Bamforth
February 13, 2018
California’s Labor Commissioner continues her pursuit of businesses that fail to comply with wage and hour laws. In aJanuary 9, 2018 News Release, she announced citations of $7,137,036 against Adat Shalom Board & Care, Inc., which operates six residential board and care facilities in Los Angeles.
California’s Labor Commissioner continues her pursuit of businesses that fail to comply with wage and hour laws. In a January 9, 2018 News Release, she announced citations of $7,137,036 against Adat Shalom Board & Care, Inc., which operates six residential board and care facilities in Los Angeles.
The Commissioner awarded unpaid minimum wage ($2,272,343) and overtime ($1,871,990), plus penalties for not providing required breaks ($128,196), and liquidated damages ($2,689,907) (double the unpaid minimum wages plus interest). She also included $174,600 in civil penalties for the same violations plus not providing accurate wage statements as required by Labor Code 226(a). See California’s Itemized Paystub Requirements, Ignoring the Needed Details Poses Trap for Unwary Employers, (March, 2016).
The 149 caregivers who share these awards worked 24-hour shifts six days/week caring for elderly persons with various ailments, including Alzheimer’s disease and some on hospice care. For their work, the company paid them $1,500 to $1,800/month, amounting to $2.40 to $2.88/hour for the number of hours worked.
The Commissioner stated: “Adult care facilities require caregivers to work around the clock, making workers in this industry vulnerable to wage theft and exploitation.” She encouraged “other residential caregivers to speak up and report wage theft if they are not paid for the work they do.”
For those running such facilities, it is a very good idea to promptly review your pay practices for legal compliance with an experienced management-side employment attorney. Minimum requirements include payment of minimum wage, currently $10.50 to $11.00 under state law depending on number of employees, but also subject to local ordinances requiring higher amounts. See California Minimum Wage Rates for 2018, (December, 2017). You are also required to pay overtime at 1-1/2 or two times the person’s hourly rate for hours over eight in a day or 40 in a week. Your employees are also entitled to receive meal and rest breaks, with the number determined by the hours of work.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
February 2, 2018
According to California’sDivision of Labor Standards Enforcement, employees are entitled to a “net” ten-minute paid rest break for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof (i.e., anything more than two hours of work). “Net” here means the rest period begins as soon as the employee arrives at an appropriate rest area away from the work station.
According to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, employees are entitled to a “net” ten-minute paid rest break for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof (i.e., anything more than two hours of work). “Net” here means the rest period begins as soon as the employee arrives at an appropriate rest area away from the work station.
In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. the California Supreme Court concluded employees shall not remain “on-duty” or “on-call” during their ten-minute paid rest breaks for any urgent, earlier return to the job; such breaks must be uninterrupted; and employers must relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time. See, Workers Don’t Lose the Snooze (June, 2017).
The Court further implied, but did not specifically state, that employers cannot require employees to stay on the work premises during a rest break. The Labor Commissioner’s office recently updated its frequently asked questions to directly address this issue:
Q. Can my employer require that I stay on the work premises during my rest period?
A. No, your employer cannot impose any restraints not inherent in the rest period requirement itself. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., [citation omitted] the California Supreme Court held that the rest period requirement “obligates employers to permit-and authorizes employees to take-off-duty rest periods. That is, during rest periods employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time.” (citation omitted) As a practical matter, however, if an employee is provided a ten minute rest period, the employee can only travel five minutes from a work post before heading back to return in time.
The employer may discipline an employee who does not return on time from an authorized break. Employers should have a written rest period policy confirming these points and should apply it uniformly.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth
February 1, 2018
Effective January 1, 2018, California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA) (California Health and Safety Code [HSC] sections 11357-11362.9) permits adults 21 years of age or older to possess and use marijuana for recreational purposes.
Effective January 1, 2018, California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA) (California Health and Safety Code [HSC] sections 11357-11362.9) permits adults 21 years of age or older to possess and use marijuana for recreational purposes.
Fortunately, AUMA does not alter the rights of California employers to maintain a drug- and alcohol-free workplace, nor does it require an employer to permit or accommodate the use of marijuana in the workplace. [HSC section 11362.45(f)]
Additionally, both medicinal and recreational marijuana remain a Schedule 1 controlled substance under federal law. Studies have shown that marijuana stores for weeks or longer in the body and consequently can have longer-term effects on a person’s perceptions and behavior. Thus, employers may refuse to hire applicants and may terminate existing employees who test positive for marijuana.
Employers should have a drug-free workplace policy that specifically bans the use, purchase/sale, control, distribution, possession of, impairment by, or being under or arriving to work under the influence of recreational and medicinal marijuana, clearly states the circumstances in which the company will require drug testing (including testing for marijuana), and includes disciplinary actions that will be taken for violations of the policy.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Tim Bowles
Cindy Bamforth
January 19, 2018
UnderA.B. 1701(the Act), effective January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” engaged in “the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” becomes liable for all wages and benefits that any subcontractor at any level on that job fails to pay its workers. “Direct contractor” is defined inCivil Code 8018as “a contractor who has a direct contractual relationship with an owner.”
Under A.B. 1701 (the Act), effective January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” engaged in “the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” becomes liable for all wages and benefits that any subcontractor at any level on that job fails to pay its workers. “Direct contractor” is defined in Civil Code 8018 as “a contractor who has a direct contractual relationship with an owner.”
The Department of Labor or various third parties, including labor unions and federally established joint labor-management cooperation committees, may enforce the Act against direct contractors via administrative or civil actions. However, subcontractor employees may not bring an action themselves.
The Act limits a direct contractor’s liability to “any unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed.” Such contractor would not be obligated to pay any penalties or liquidated damages.
To provide a measure of prior warning and prevention, the Act enables direct contractors to require subcontractors to provide payroll records, including pay stub information under Labor Code 226(a) and the status of fringe or other benefit payments. See also California’s Itemized Pay Stub Requirements, (March 2016).
A direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” any and all payments to a subcontractor until the latter provides the requested records.
A direct contractor is also free to “establish by contract or enforce any otherwise lawful remedies against a subcontractor it hires for liability created by the nonpayment of wages, fringe or other benefit payments.”
Direct contractors should consider better protecting themselves against the consequences of this new law by actions such as:
For more information, please contact one of our attorneys, Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
January 11, 2018
California minimum wage will increase to $11.00 per hour on January 1, 2018 for employerswith 26 or more employees and $10.50 for smaller employers with 25 employees or less. Those rates will continue to increase annually until reaching $15 per hour in 2022 for larger employers and in 2023 for those with 25 or fewer employees. SeeCalifornia’s Gradual Increases in Minimum Wage, to Reach $15.00 Per Hour by January 1, 2022(April, 2016).
California minimum wage will increase to $11.00 per hour on January 1, 2018 for employers with 26 or more employees and $10.50 for smaller employers with 25 employees or less. Those rates will continue to increase annually until reaching $15 per hour in 2022 for larger employers and in 2023 for those with 25 or fewer employees. See California’s Gradual Increases in Minimum Wage, to Reach $15.00 Per Hour by January 1, 2022 (April, 2016).
Concurrently, many California cities (and two counties) have implemented their own minimum wage ordinances. See the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education listing for regular updates. Employers should examine the rules for every jurisdiction in which they operate, not just the one or more where they might have offices. Close attention is required as different municipalities have different definitions of “covered employer” and/or “covered employee.” For example, a delivery company with drivers routinely working in multiple cities or counties each week may well have separate minimum wage compliance issues simultaneously.
These California municipalities require minimum wage levels greater than the state standard as of January 1, 2018:
Note: The City of Belmont has enacted its own minimum wage ordinance effective December 28, 2017, but employers will not need to start paying $12.50 per hour until July 1, 2018.
Some cities have enacted separate minimum wage laws for hotels. For example, Long Beach has a minimum wage of $14.35 (effective July 1, 2017) only for hotel workers. Santa Monica’s minimum wage for hotel workers is $15.66 (effective July 1, 2017). City of Los Angeles’ hotel workers minimum wage is $15.66 (effective July 1, 2017).
Non-profit charitable organizations should check for possibly slower implementation requirements.
A covered employer must also conspicuously post an updated wage notice/bulletin for each applicable jurisdiction. Click the above city/county link(s) to download the most current notice.
See also:
For more information, please contact one of our attorneys, Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
December 28, 2017
In a December 14, 2017press release, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced an increase for 2018 in itsoptional standard mileage reimbursementrates for employee business use of a personal vehicle from 53.5 to 54.5 cents.
In a December 14, 2017 press release, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced an increase for 2018 in its optional standard mileage reimbursement rates for employee business use of a personal vehicle from 53.5 to 54.5 cents.
The IRS bases the mileage rate on an annual study of fixed and variable automotive operating costs, including insurance, repairs, maintenance, gas and oil.
Under California Labor Code section 2802, employers must reimburse employees for all actual work-related expenses necessarily incurred. Many employers use the IRS mileage reimbursement rate to satisfy their reimbursement obligation.
According to section 29.2.4 of California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual (p.99), using the IRS mileage reimbursement rate will satisfy an employer’s reimbursement obligation unless the employee provides evidence demonstrating otherwise. For example, if the employee can show the IRS reimbursement rate does not cover all of his/her actual and necessary business-related vehicle expenses, the employer must pay the difference.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin for more information.
Helena Kobrin
December 22, 2017
The 2018 changes in California employment law are numerous. Compliance with these from January 1 on will of course reduce the prospect of related claims or lawsuits.
The 2018 changes in California employment law are numerous. Compliance with these from January 1 on will of course reduce the prospect of related claims or lawsuits.
Two new provisions particularly require immediate review of employment applications and hiring practices for “Day One” compliance. See:
Managers should not put this off. No matter the size of business, applications that include salary history or criminal background after December 31, 2017 will be in violation of the law.
Other changes include the New Parent Leave Act for all businesses with more than 20 employees and increases in minimum wage as well as new standards for exemption from overtime for physicians and surgeons and computer software professionals.
We will be publishing more “What’s New in 2018” articles in coming weeks. Business owners and managers may also attend one of our two scheduled Pasadena seminars on how these changes will impact employers: on Friday, January 26 or Friday, February 23, 2018.
Our attorneys are also available to answer questions and assist businesses with any implementation issues. For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin
December 14, 2017