The First District Court of Appeal’s August 1, 2018 decision in Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC reminds employers of the harsh consequences for failing to timely (and properly) pay an employee’s wages upon resignation or termination.

The Court of Appeal addressed the Superior Court’s order 1) affirming the California Labor Commissioner’s award of $4,250 in “waiting time” penalties (i.e., the statutory penalty under Labor Code section 203 for the time an employee has to wait for the late payment of final wages), and 2) awarding Nishiki attorneys’ fees in the amount of $86,160 following the employer’s unsuccessful appeal from the Labor Commissioner to the Superior Court. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the employer argued the waiting time penalties were unwarranted and the attorney fees award was excessive. Though the Court of Appeal reduced the waiting time penalties, it otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to award Nishiki additional attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Danko’s appeal to the First District.

Continue Reading Substantial Penalties For Innocent Mistakes Regarding Final Wages Upon Termination

Since January 1, 2018, California law has prohibited employers from asking applicants about their salary history. Earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2282 into law to clarify several aspects of the salary history ban.

Continue Reading California Clarifies Its Salary History Ban, Making It Easier For Employers To Comply

Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (Case No. S234969), the California Supreme Court weighed in for the first time on the viability of a de minimis defense to California wage and hour claims.

Many commentators have since rushed to declare that “de minimis” is dead. Not so.

Continue Reading California Supreme Court Leaves Open The Possibility Of A De Minimis Defense For Wage And Hour Claims – But Not Under The Facts Of This Case

By now, you have no doubt heard about the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, going into effect January 1, 2020. This new privacy legislation will force many companies – whether headquartered in or out of California – into compliance with several onerous requirements. Some have called it California’s answer to the (notorious) GDPR. But what does this mean from an employment perspective?

It means that despite the title, the Act extends certain protections to California employees because it defines “consumer” as “any natural person who is a California resident.” Therefore, regardless of where your company is located, if it employs at least one individual who is living or domiciled in the state and also meets one of the thresholds below, it must comply at least with regard to all California residents, including employees.

Continue Reading Yes, The California Consumer Privacy Act Covers California-Based Employees

On July 24, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) – the investigative agency within the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for Form I-9 Compliance – announced that it served I-9 audit notices to more than 5,200 employer since January as part of a two-phase nationwide worksite enforcement operation.

Last week, HSI served 2,738 Notices of Inspection and made 32 arrests. (In contrast, HSI initiated 1,360 I-9 audits in the government’s last fiscal year.)

HSI’s latest worksite investigation effort aligns with then Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan’s forecast in the fall of 2017 to potentially quadruple or quintuple worksite enforcement in 2018. Under prior administrations, ICE has utilized worksite enforcement tools to assess employers’ compliance with immigration laws and impose civil and, potentially, criminal penalties. Yet, with the number of NOIs and arrests showing no signs of stopping under the directive Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, Form I-9 compliance is once again a front and center issue for employers.

Click here to learn about actions employers should take now to prepare for a potential audit notice.

While immigration debates, policies and rules make the news seemingly every day, very few new laws or regulations have actually been implemented for employment-based immigration. Behind the scenes, however, strict new interpretations of existing laws and under-the-radar changes in enforcement have significantly impacted the ability of companies to transfer, hire and keep foreign employees in the United States. Several key changes have been buried in seemingly innocuous policy memorandums and government websites. The impact on companies can be both real and urgent.

While these changes have occurred in different areas, there is one central theme: there is little to no margin for error on the part of employers or employees. Click here to view the four tips employers should consider in this ever-changing environment where compliance is paramount.

Mark Twain famously said: “Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” So it is true with reports that employers can breathe easier with the new Trump National Labor Relations Board.

The recent decision in Circus Circus Casinos Inc. is a stark reminder that even as the mid-term elections in the Trump presidency approach, the Obama era, at least at the NLRB, is not over. The decision in Circus Circus imposes on employers an additional administrative step to clear before conducting investigatory interviews during the disciplinary process. After receiving a signal (even if not a direct request) that an employee desires representation, employers may not proceed with interviews until a union representative can be identified and obtained.

Click here to read on.

US employers take note: Q3 ushers in a number of new minimum wage increases.

Unless otherwise indicated, the following minimum wage increases became effective on July 1, 2018:

Continue Reading Act Fast To Comply With The 2018 Minimum Wage Updates: Summer Edition

On June 11, the UK Government released a draft statutory instrument (The Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018) and accompanying FAQs, which, subject only to Parliamentary approval, will require additional disclosures to be made in the Annual Reports of Listed PLCs* for financial years beginning on or after January 1, 2019. These changes will be implemented via amendments to the Large & Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts & Reports) Regulations 2008.

These new reporting requirements are part of the Government’s wider package of corporate governance reforms announced in August 2017 (for further information on the wider package of reforms, click here, for further information on the UK Corporate Governance Code developments, click here, and for further information on the reforms affecting large private companies and unlisted PLCs, click here).

Summary of the Additional Disclosures Required in the Annual Report

Subject to meeting the relevant thresholds described below, Listed PLCs* will be required to make additional disclosures regarding, among other things:

  • The ratio of the CEO’s pay (the single total figure of remuneration) to the median (50th), 25th and 75th percentile full-time equivalent remuneration of their UK employees;
  • The impact of the future share price on executive pay; and
  • How the directors have engaged with employees.

To read the entire Alert, click here. Thanks to Stephen Ratcliffe and our UK colleagues for sharing.

* A Listed PLC, otherwise referred to as a “quoted company”, is a UK incorporated PLC with equity shares listed on the FCA’s Official List, or on NASDAQ, the NYSE, or a recognised stock exchange in the EEA. It does not include AIM listed companies.

Last month the Seventh Circuit drew a distinction between “commissions” and “bonuses” as those terms are used in the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and its implementing regulations. For employers, particularly those in retail, Sutula-Johnson v. Office Depot informs how employers structure, amend and communicate their employee incentive compensation schemes.

Continue Reading Be Careful What You Call It — Commission Plans In Illinois