Wage and Hour

Subscribe to Wage and Hour

Together we navigated operational challenges caused by the pandemic, and together we will weather this. What follows is information and practical advice for employers concerned with satisfying their payroll obligations in the near term in the face of their bank falling into receivership.

  • Identify the “universe” of employment-related expenses. This will include payroll, benefits, bonus and commission comp, insurance, and severance obligations.
  • Understand that liability for unpaid wages can be significant. For example, liability in California includes:
    • Back payment of any unpaid wage amounts that employees prove they were legally entitled to.
    • Interest of up to 10% of the unpaid wages.
    • Penalties for late payment of wages equal to: (i) $100 for the first violation; and (ii) for each subsequent violation, $200 plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld. Penalties may apply for each pay period that wages remain unpaid.
    • If any employees leave the company after the payday date, the company can be liable for waiting time penalties for late payment of final wages. Waiting time penalties are equal to 1 day’s wages for each day an employee’s final wages are unpaid, up to a maximum penalty of 30 days’ wages.
    • Companies may be required to pay employees’ attorney’s fees if the employees prevail in litigation.
    • Criminal liability for wage theft if the act is “intentional.” Felony cases are punishable by up to 3 years in prison.  

…
Continue Reading Navigating Fallout From a Bank Receivership | Practical Tips for US Employers

California employers may soon need to rethink and revise their time-rounding policies–even if they’re neutral. In Camp v. Home Depot, USA, the California Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether, under California law, employers may use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for purposes of paying wages. A decision limiting or prohibiting the practice could require major changes to common timekeeping practices for payroll purposes, so employers–especially those engaging in time rounding–will want to keep a close eye on developments.

Here’s what’s happened so far, and what employers should do now.…

Continue Reading Is Time Rounding Over for California Employers? The California Supreme Court Will Weigh In

California employers will need to review and confirm their employees’ exempt status and non-exempt hourly wage rates before the start of the new year because of an unusual change in the statewide minimum wage applicable to all California employees.

On July 27, 2022, the California Director of the Finance Department sent a letter to Governor…

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed employers a huge win in the continuing war over California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a bounty-hunter statute that deputizes employees to sue on behalf of the state. In yesterday’s Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, decision, the Supreme Court held that employers may compel employees to arbitrate…

The Supreme Court of California has just resolved a long-standing debate over whether employees may recover additional statutory penalties if employers do not include unpaid premium payments for meal period and rest break violations (commonly referred to as “break penalties”) on employee paystubs, or include such premium payments with an employee’s final wages due immediately…

Actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) have long plagued employers, both large and small, but that all may change this year.

What is PAGA?

PAGA, enacted in 2004, permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s Attorney General and file suit on behalf of other “aggrieved” employees to recover penalties for California Labor Code violations. The potential recovery against employers can be substantial, with default penalties calculated as $100 “for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation,” and $200 per aggrieved employer per pay period for “each subsequent violation.” As such, potential PAGA awards commonly reach millions of dollars against small employers, and tens of millions against large employers, just for simple administrative oversights.

In addition to the potential for steep penalties, several California court decisions have expanded the reach of PAGA over the years. In 2009, the California Supreme Court held that employees bringing actions under PAGA need not comply with the strict procedural rules governing class actions. See Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009). Then, in 2014, the California Supreme Court held that employees could not waive their right to bring PAGA claims in court, paving the way for an increase in PAGA litigation. See Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014).

Recently, California courts have provided some limits to the expansion of PAGA. In 2021, the California Court of Appeals provided a potential “manageability” defense for employers.  Specifically, in Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, the Court of Appeals held that trial courts have the discretion to strike claims for penalties under PAGA if the claims will be unmanageable due to individualized issues at trial. See 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021).

Is there an end in sight?

However, the fate of PAGA may rest in the hands of California voters this year. In December 2021, California’s Secretary of State approved the distribution of a petition to put an initiative on the 2022 ballot called “the California Fair Pay and Accountability Act.” The California Fair Pay and Accountability Act aims to essentially repeal PAGA, and replace it with an alternative framework for the enforcement of labor laws.…

Continue Reading California Employers: An End To California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)?

Wary of wage and hour class actions, many employers have been grappling with whether and how to compensate employees for activities related to COVID-19. After nearly two years of guessing, on January 20, 2022, the US Department of Labor (DOL) posted Fact Sheet #84, “Compensability of Time Spent Undergoing COVID-19 Health Screenings, Testing, and Vaccinations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),” on its website. The next day, and with no explanation, Fact Sheet #84 disappeared.

Before it disappeared, Fact Sheet #84 addressed the compensability of time spent undergoing those COVID-19 activities with reference to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (the OSHA ETS). Given that the OSHA ETS had been stayed just a week earlier by the US Supreme Court and then was subsequently withdrawn by OSHA on January 26, Fact Sheet #84’s sudden disappearance is perhaps not surprising. Nevertheless, employers should keep their eyes peeled for an updated Fact Sheet #84 that addresses compensability of testing and vaccination time without references to the OSHA ETS, especially since the advice in the now withdrawn Fact Sheet #84 is in line with other prior DOL advice on compensable time for employer-required testing and medical procedures under the FLSA.

What Fact Sheet #84 Said Before It Was Withdrawn

The guidance in Fact Sheet #84 distinguished between testing and vaccination that occurs during regular work hours and after regular hours:

Activities that occur during normal working hours

  • Under the FLSA, employer-required activities during normal working hours are compensable, unless the activity falls within one of the exceptions stated in 29 C.F.R. Part 785 (e.g., bona fide meal breaks and off-duty time).
  • Employees must be paid for time they spend going to, waiting for, and receiving medical attention required by the employer or on the employer’s premises during normal working hours-including COVID-19 related medical attention. Therefore, if an employer requires an employee to engage in COVID-19 activities (such as receiving a COVID-19 vaccine dose, taking a COVID-19 test, or undergoing a COVID-19 health screening or temperature check) during the employee’s normal working hours, the time is compensable time-regardless of where the activity occurs.

…
Continue Reading Compensability of COVID-related Activities | The DOL May Have Weighed In to Help Employers Avoid Class Actions

Illinois employers have a plethora of new laws to keep up with for 2022. From new Chicago and Cook County patron vaccination orders, to new laws limiting restrictive covenants, to pay data reporting (and more!), new Illinois laws are certain to make for a busy 2022 for Illinois employers. Here are 10 changes employers should know now as we get the ball rolling in 2022.

  1. Chicago and Cook County Vaccination Orders Require Some Employers to Check Vaccination Status of Employees and Require Testing for Unvaccinated Employees

Employers at restaurants, bars, gyms, and other establishments in Chicago and Cook County have already started scrambling to implement patron vaccination requirements–and requirements that they obtain the vaccination status of their employees and require weekly testing for employees who aren’t fully vaccinated. As of January 3, 2022, Mayor Lightfoot’s Public Health Order 2021-2 and the Cook County Department of Public Health’s Public Health Order 2021-11  took effect. Under the Orders, covered businesses (including establishments where food and beverages are served, gyms and fitness venues, and entertainment and recreation venues in areas where food and beverages are served) must:

  • Turn away patrons age 5 and over entering the indoor portion of an establishment unless they show a CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card or an official immunization record (or a photo of the same) from the jurisdiction, state, or country where the vaccine was administered, reflecting the person’s name, vaccine brand, the date(s) administered and full vaccination status (two weeks after the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, or two weeks after a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine). There are certain narrow exceptions, such as allowing individuals inside for 10 minutes or less to carry out food or use the bathroom
  • Post signage informing patrons of the vaccination requirement
  • Develop and maintain a written record of the protocol for implementing and enforcing the Orders’ requirements

While covered businesses that are employers do not have to require employees to be vaccinated, they must:

  • determine the vaccination status of each employee by requiring each vaccinated employee to provide acceptable proof of vaccination status (including whether the employee is fully or partially vaccinated), and maintain a record of each employee’s vaccination status; and
  • require COVID-19 testing for employees who are not fully vaccinated. Employees who are not fully vaccinated and who report at least once every 7 days to a workplace where there are others present must be tested for COVID-19 at least once every 7 days and must provide documentation of the most recent COVID-19 test result to their employer no later than the 7thday following the date on which the employee last provided a test result.

Employers with 100 or more employees must also comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Emergency Temporary Standard (OSHA ETS), at least for now. The US Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether to block the ETS at a special January 7 session, but until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, the ETS stands, requiring employers with at least 100 employees to implement and enforce a policy that mandates employees to be fully vaccinated or to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and mask-wearing. For more on the Chicago and Cook County Orders and the OSHA ETS, see our blog here.…

Continue Reading Illinois Employers: Ten Top Developments for 2022

When world economies face challenges, employment litigation claims of all types arise. In this Quick Chat video, our Labor and Employment lawyers discuss the range of trending employment-related claims and cases and share what employers can do to best position themselves to manage impending litigation.

Click here to watch the video.

Review our brochure, COVID-19…

In April, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a statewide right-to-recall law — S.B. 93 — affecting certain employers. One of the key provisions of the new law, which has not been subject to much discussion, is how it affects corporate transactions.

In this article, we discuss how this new statute that could present challenges for …