The UK Cabinet and EU leaders have now approved a draft withdrawal agreement setting out the terms of UK withdrawal from the EU. With the agreement still to be approved by the European and UK parliaments, our London Employment & Compensation team recently released a report analyzing the potential people implications of a “deal” verse “no deal” scenario. Click here to access.
As we previously discussed here, the United States Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis was a clear win for employers that seek to avoid the expense and disruption of class litigation by resolving disputes individually through binding arbitration. As explained by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, “[i]n bilateral arbitration, parties forego the procedural rigor and appellate review of the courts in order to realize the benefits of private dispute resolution: lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the ability to choose expert adjudicators to resolve specialized disputes.”
For employers looking to take advantage of the benefits of individual arbitration, there are several drafting nuances to consider before rolling out or updating existing arbitration agreements.
For many companies, their compensation plan year coincides with the calendar year. So, as we approach the end of 2018, it’s a holly, jolly time to review, revise and plan for implementation of commission and bonus compensation plans for 2019. (And, for those companies on non-calendar year comp cycles, it’s a good time to start on that New Year’s resolution and get ahead.)
We are decking the halls with requests for commission and bonus compensation plan reviews to make it before the ball drops on December 31.
The Department of Labor’s newly issued opinion letter provides good news for employers who use tipped workers. On November 8th, the DOL reversed its previous “80/20” guidance on use of the tip credit. The tip credit permits employers to pay employees in tip-based positions, such as bartenders and waiters, a lower hourly wage than the federally mandated minimum wage (with the thought that earned tips will make up the difference). Under the previous “80/20” rule, employers were barred from paying the lower cash wage to tipped employees who spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tip generating duties such as setting tables or cutting lemons.
In the wake of the #HeForShe movement, California recently became the first US state to require companies to put female directors on their corporate boards.
Supporters of the law make a convincing business case for gender diversity, citing rigorous research findings showing companies where women are represented at board or top-management levels are also the companies that perform best financially. Beyond the business case however, there is also a sense that increased representation is critical to discussions and decisions affecting corporate culture and ensuring workplace respect and dignity.
Now is the time to focus on building a strong corporate culture of equality and respect. California is advancing a trend started in Australia and a number of European countries in recognizing the importance of gender-balanced corporate boards. Germany, Italy and the Netherlands all have initiatives in place to boost corporate board representation.
California courts mostly take a no prisoners approach to Business and Professions Code section 16600, the statute prohibiting illegal restraints on trade. Courts broadly interpret Section 16600, which states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void,” to invalidate most post-employment non-competes and customer non-solicits, including covenants preventing former employees or their new employers from “hiring” employees of a former employer (so-called “no hire agreements”). But Section 16600 does not bar all post-employment covenants–just those that “restrain” trade.
2018 has been a year of box office hits for California employers, but the critics remain skeptical.
On December 13th, join Baker McKenzie at the Westin SFO in Millbrae from 9 AM to 12 PM for our annual employment law update as we review the employment winners in 2018 and share our predictions for the year ahead.
With our director and producers keeping us on track, our cast and crew will cover topics including:
- National and CA wage and hour updates and trends
- California’s hot-off-the-press #metoo legislation
- New CA requirements for female board members
- Clarifying California’s salary history ban
- Living and litigating in the gig economy for multi-state employers
- Immigration changes affecting California employers
- And much more!
We will also go “on location” and share a few international trends.
Join Us and Win!
The concession stands are open! Join us for a chance to win movie night themed prizes and more. Click here to view the full invite for more details on time, location and our cast and crew, and click here to RSVP.
In a welcome decision for franchisors, and first of its kind in the Second Circuit, the Southern District of New York ruled that Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, the franchisor (Domino’s), did not exert enough control over its franchisee to warrant joint employer status. This determination means Domino’s will not have to face claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) by current and former employees of a Domino’s franchisee.
Click here to read more about the case, the decision and takeaways for employers.
As employment lawyers based in California are well aware that post-employment non-compete agreements are generally void as a matter of law in this state. Further, there is precedent for awarding punitive damages and disgorgement of profits where employers have knowingly required employees to enter into invalid agreements. Also, the DOL has actively pursued California-based companies engaging in anti-competitive practices when it comes to talent.
Against that backdrop, however, employers need not “throw in the towel” completely when it comes to post-termination restrictive covenants as there are a few narrow scenarios that allow for enforceable post-termination non-competes in California in the right circumstances, and a potential new take on an old strategy to consider.
The Seventh Circuit recently clarified that courts should determine whether an arbitration agreement provides for or permits class-action claims. The decision in Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp. is instructive on many levels, not the least of which is its clarity.