Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014 San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Employees who assert their rights to receive the City’s minimum wage are protected from retaliation and may file a civil lawsuit against their employers for any violation of this ordinance. The City can investigate possible violations, shall have access to payroll records, and can enforce minimum wage requirements by ordering reinstatement, payment of back wages, and penalties.
Affected employers must also post an updated San Francisco Minimum Wage notice where employees can read it easily.
For further information, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
As covered inMandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
As covered in Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
The California Labor Commissioner’s office recently published its anticipated set of frequently-asked questions (“FAQs”) (and answers) on employer AB 1522 obligations. Among other aspects of the law, the material addresses:
● eligibility for paid sick leave;
● how qualifying employees accrue and take paid sick leave;
● whether employer policies can provide more paid sick leave than the law requires;
● for what purposes an employee can take paid sick leave;
● how to pay and track earned and taken sick leave; and
● what other related information companies must provide to their employees.
For additional assistance understanding and implementing AB 1522, please contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014 San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Employees who assert their rights to receive the City’s minimum wage are protected from retaliation and may file a civil lawsuit against their employers for any violation of this ordinance. The City can investigate possible violations, shall have access to payroll records, and can enforce minimum wage requirements by ordering reinstatement, payment of back wages, and penalties.
Affected employers must also post an updated San Francisco Minimum Wage notice where employees can read it easily.
For further information, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
As covered inMandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
As covered in Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
The California Labor Commissioner’s office recently published its anticipated set of frequently-asked questions (“FAQs”) (and answers) on employer AB 1522 obligations. Among other aspects of the law, the material addresses:
● eligibility for paid sick leave;
● how qualifying employees accrue and take paid sick leave;
● whether employer policies can provide more paid sick leave than the law requires;
● for what purposes an employee can take paid sick leave;
● how to pay and track earned and taken sick leave; and
● what other related information companies must provide to their employees.
For additional assistance understanding and implementing AB 1522, please contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
In aDecember 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
In a December 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
The government calculates the mileage rate by an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, 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 choose to use the IRS mileage reimbursement rate to satisfy their reimbursement obligation.
According to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, using the IRS mileage reimbursement rate will generally satisfy an employer’s reimbursement obligation absent 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 and assistance, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See our related blogs:
New 2010 IRS Mileage Rate
IRS Announces New Standard Mileage Rates
Mileage Reimbursements for 2013
IRS Mileage Reimbursement Rates for 2014
Cindy Bamforth, December 19, 2014
In aDecember 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
In a December 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
The government calculates the mileage rate by an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, 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 choose to use the IRS mileage reimbursement rate to satisfy their reimbursement obligation.
According to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, using the IRS mileage reimbursement rate will generally satisfy an employer’s reimbursement obligation absent 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 and assistance, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See our related blogs:
New 2010 IRS Mileage Rate
IRS Announces New Standard Mileage Rates
Mileage Reimbursements for 2013
IRS Mileage Reimbursement Rates for 2014
Cindy Bamforth, December 19, 2014
While private parties doing business are free to agree to arbitrate any dispute between them outside of the courts, an employer who presents a “take-it-or-leave-it” arbitration requirement to a job applicant as a condition of hiring presents special problems. California’s appeals courts have been particularly dedicated – or perhaps in commerce’s view obsessively picky – in refining the detail required to render an employment arbitration agreement fair, balanced and thus enforceable in this state
While private parties doing business are free to agree to arbitrate any dispute between them outside of the courts, an employer who presents a “take-it-or-leave-it” arbitration requirement to a job applicant as a condition of hiring presents special problems. California’s appeals courts have been particularly dedicated – or perhaps in commerce’s view obsessively picky – in refining the detail required to render an employment arbitration agreement fair, balanced and thus enforceable in this state. The decision in Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 180 California Reporter , third series (Cal. Rptr. 3d) 89 (November 17, 2014), is the latest.
One of the more hotly contested refinements on arbitration agreements is the wording necessary to disqualify an employee from bringing a “class action” or “representative claim” into his or her arbitration on his individual claims. As we outlined in “Contractor Misclassification . . . Class Action?”, an employee’s class action allegations seek to include a large number of his or her co-workers claims in the lawsuit. A “representative” claim or action similarly seeks to include co-workers, but under special, streamlined criteria and procedures.
In Garden Fresh, the Court of Appeal decided that when the employment arbitration agreement does not specify whether the employee can include class action or representative claims in arbitration, it is up to a judge, not an arbitrator, to decide.
The trial judge in Garden Fresh originally declined to make the ruling on an employee’s ability to include a representative claim in her arbitration, instead referring the question for the arbitrator to decide. This was bad news to the employer Garden Fresh Restaurants since, in theory anyway, an arbitrator might well be more inclined to include class or representative actions in the arbitration out of the prospect of a more complicated and thus more profitable proceeding for that arbitrator. Handing the question to the arbitrator also raised the stakes because arbitration decisions and awards are commonly not reviewable by a court. Thus, an employer would almost certainly be stuck with an arbitrator’s ruling to allow a class or representative action, a development that could jack up considerably the leverage against the employer to settle.
However, Garden Fresh, and with it other California employers, fared better with the appellate court. Just as trial judges are required to examine agreements for their fairness on matters such as an employee’s decreased scope of claims or increased cost in arbitration, the Court of Appeal saw this as a “gateway” issue requiring judicial determination.
The irony of course is that arbitration agreements are dictated by employers. Here, Garden Fresh faced the prospect of incurring a severe blow to its operations and financial stability by virtue of incomplete contract terms on which it had required the employee to agree.
The wisdom of whether an arbitration agreement could or should actually seek to limit an individual’s ability to bring class or representative actions in his/her required arbitration is a separate question. However, if the Garden Fresh agreement had included direction on that point – or directed that the trial judge should decide it – it would have saved the fees and other resources necessary to hash out the ambiguity at two levels of the California courts. The simple “math” of an ounce of prevention equaling several thousand pounds (or dollars) of cure comes to mind.
If you need further information, please contact any of our attorneys – Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth, and Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin, December 12, 2014
While private parties doing business are free to agree to arbitrate any dispute between them outside of the courts, an employer who presents a “take-it-or-leave-it” arbitration requirement to a job applicant as a condition of hiring presents special problems. California’s appeals courts have been particularly dedicated – or perhaps in commerce’s view obsessively picky – in refining the detail required to render an employment arbitration agreement fair, balanced and thus enforceable in this state
While private parties doing business are free to agree to arbitrate any dispute between them outside of the courts, an employer who presents a “take-it-or-leave-it” arbitration requirement to a job applicant as a condition of hiring presents special problems. California’s appeals courts have been particularly dedicated – or perhaps in commerce’s view obsessively picky – in refining the detail required to render an employment arbitration agreement fair, balanced and thus enforceable in this state. The decision in Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 180 California Reporter , third series (Cal. Rptr. 3d) 89 (November 17, 2014), is the latest.
One of the more hotly contested refinements on arbitration agreements is the wording necessary to disqualify an employee from bringing a “class action” or “representative claim” into his or her arbitration on his individual claims. As we outlined in “Contractor Misclassification . . . Class Action?”, an employee’s class action allegations seek to include a large number of his or her co-workers claims in the lawsuit. A “representative” claim or action similarly seeks to include co-workers, but under special, streamlined criteria and procedures.
In Garden Fresh, the Court of Appeal decided that when the employment arbitration agreement does not specify whether the employee can include class action or representative claims in arbitration, it is up to a judge, not an arbitrator, to decide.
The trial judge in Garden Fresh originally declined to make the ruling on an employee’s ability to include a representative claim in her arbitration, instead referring the question for the arbitrator to decide. This was bad news to the employer Garden Fresh Restaurants since, in theory anyway, an arbitrator might well be more inclined to include class or representative actions in the arbitration out of the prospect of a more complicated and thus more profitable proceeding for that arbitrator. Handing the question to the arbitrator also raised the stakes because arbitration decisions and awards are commonly not reviewable by a court. Thus, an employer would almost certainly be stuck with an arbitrator’s ruling to allow a class or representative action, a development that could jack up considerably the leverage against the employer to settle.
However, Garden Fresh, and with it other California employers, fared better with the appellate court. Just as trial judges are required to examine agreements for their fairness on matters such as an employee’s decreased scope of claims or increased cost in arbitration, the Court of Appeal saw this as a “gateway” issue requiring judicial determination.
The irony of course is that arbitration agreements are dictated by employers. Here, Garden Fresh faced the prospect of incurring a severe blow to its operations and financial stability by virtue of incomplete contract terms on which it had required the employee to agree.
The wisdom of whether an arbitration agreement could or should actually seek to limit an individual’s ability to bring class or representative actions in his/her required arbitration is a separate question. However, if the Garden Fresh agreement had included direction on that point – or directed that the trial judge should decide it – it would have saved the fees and other resources necessary to hash out the ambiguity at two levels of the California courts. The simple “math” of an ounce of prevention equaling several thousand pounds (or dollars) of cure comes to mind.
If you need further information, please contact any of our attorneys – Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth, and Helena Kobrin.
Helena Kobrin, December 12, 2014
How do you choose a trademark (for products) or service mark (for services)? Choosing an enforceable mark or one that can be registered with the government is not as simple as just picking a word, icon or phrase that you like. Careful research and planning are required to confirm your chosen mark does not conflict, i.e., is not likely to cause confusion in the public’s eye, with an existing mark. If you skip this step out of supposed cost or time considerations and rely purely on chance that no-
How do you choose a trademark (for products) or service mark (for services)? Choosing an enforceable mark or one that can be registered with the government is not as simple as just picking a word, icon or phrase that you like. Careful research and planning are required to confirm your chosen mark does not conflict, i.e., is not likely to cause confusion in the public’s eye, with an existing mark. If you skip this step out of supposed cost or time considerations and rely purely on chance that no-one else already has rights that would trump your own, you may be in for a very expensive mistake.
Witness the nearly 30 years of legal actions (1978 – 2007) between Apple Records (aka the Beatles’ label) and Apple Computer, in part over the supposed confusion between the music company’s whole green Granny Smith apple logo and the computer company’s iTunes cartoon apple with a bite taken. Apple Records prevailed in some of the cases and there were some settlements. Apple Computer then prevailed in the last court battle over whether its establishment of iTunes violated the earlier settlement, citing another case decision to argue that “even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about” the distinction between the two marks. The parties then settled, with Beatles music available on iTunes. Of course, if you don’t have the kind of money these two entities could devote to the fight, you should avoid such disputes in the first place.
Some of the steps involved in picking a good trademark are:
1. Find out if anyone else is using the mark you want to use or something similar. The research can and should be done on various levels, for example, search of the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) website; with state trademark registrars; online search for others using the mark; other searches of business forums and publications.
2. Determine if any such similar or identical marks are being used to identify products or services that are the same or related to what you are looking to identify with your potential mark.
3. In the event of such conflicts, continue the selection and research process until you have a potential mark that you believe will not be too close to someone else’s and the goods or service it is used to identify.
Some potential conflicts are obvious. An individual seeking to use “Nike,” “Nikey,” or even “NighKeigh” to identify a shoe company is clearly a bad idea. In addition to marks that are identical or similar in appearance or spelling, sounding the same can be enough to rule it out.
Another less-evident factor can cause problems. Some people do not register their established marks with the U.S. or other national government or with any state. Thus, even a fairly thorough search will not find them. Yet, even without government registration, a use in commerce (between states or with a foreign country) or even on a local level, may give its owner the right to block you from using the same or a similar mark for the same or similar products or services. Thus well-planned research beyond the standard government data bases should be part of the due diligence.
Maximizing your protections should include hiring a trademark specialist attorney who can get a search done for you. While you can of course order a search yourself, you would not then receive the attorney’s analysis on potentials for conflict and invitations for trouble. “Penny wise and pound/dollar foolish” comes to mind. Skipping the relatively small investment of a close search may buy a new business the much greater expense of dealing with a “cease and desist” letter from a rival. Such a letter typically presents an assortment of bad alternatives: (a) stop using the mark to avoid a losing legal battle and incur the expense of having to switch to a new, non-conflicting mark; (b) fight the challenger in court, with virtually guaranteed high legal fees and similarly guaranteed uncertainty of outcome; or (c) ignore the letter and hope they will go away.
Prevention of infringement claims is thus key. Clearing and properly protecting a mark are part of a business’s start-up costs or launch of a new product or service. Include those costs in your budget and you will save in the long run. Contact attorney Helena Kobrin if you need help selecting a legally protectable trademark.
Helena Kobrin, October 24, 2014