Last year, the Washington Supreme Court considered the following certified question: “Does the Washington Minimum Wage Act require non-agricultural employers to pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate work?” On September 5, 2019, the court answered with a resounding no.
In an order with significant implications for motor carriers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concluded that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted by federal transportation law and may no longer be enforced by the State of California where the driver is subject to federal hours-of-service (HOS) requirements. Specifically, on December 21,
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc., et al., No. 17-15221 (January 15, 2019), requested that the California Supreme Court decide the following question: Is operating engineers’ offsite “mobilization work”—including the transportation to and from a public works site of roadwork grinding equipment—performed “in the execution of [a] contract for public work,” Cal. Lab. Code § 1772, such that it entitles workers to “not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed” pursuant to section 1771 of the California Labor Code?
The Beltway Buzz is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C. could impact your business.
On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply to wage claims brought by an interstate truck driver, even though the plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of California adopted a new test to determine whether a worker performing services for a company is an employee or an independent contractor under California’s wage orders. The new three-factor test, known as the ABC test, will determine whether a company “employs” a worker under the wage orders, which address certain requirements for minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest periods, among others.
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) announced this week that the requirement for public works contractors and subcontractors to submit certified payroll records (CPRs) electronically using the DIR’s electronic certified payroll reporting (eCPR) system will resume on August 1, 2016.
On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its long-anticipated revisions to the federal overtime regulations governing the so-called white-collar exemptions to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Most notably, the revisions more than double the minimum salary threshold needed to qualify for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions. The revised regulations also make other significant changes to the amounts that must be paid, including allowing employers to count nondiscretionary bonuses and commissions to satisfy a portion of the salary threshold, scheduling automatic adjustments to the salary threshold every three years, and increasing the annual salary threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption.
For over a year, retail and hospitality employers have been anxiously awaiting the issuance of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime regulations—regulations which many had predicted would impact retail and hospitality employers more than most. Among their biggest fears was that the DOL would make changes to the duties test, increase the salary minimum to the highest level contemplated, and simultaneously disallow inclusion of bonuses to meet the salary minimum. Luckily, the DOL decided not to include any of those proposed changes in the final regulations. However, the changes that retail and hospitality employers will be required to implement by December 1, 2016 are expected to impact retail and hospitality businesses in a profound and negative way. According to David French, senior vice president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, a major industry group representing retailers and chain restaurants, “DOL’s new overtime rules are a massive failure. They are a failure of the regulatory process. They are a failure to listen. And, most of all, they are a failure to face reality.”
On October 6, 2015, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States summarily denied the emergency stay application filed by the association plaintiffs in Home Care Association of America v. Weil. In the absence of a stay, the new U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) regulations extending the federal minimum wage and overtime requirements for home health care workers employed by third-party employers are expected to go into effect on October 13, 2015.
On August 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. Weil reinstated the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) regulations extending the federal minimum wage and overtime requirements for home health care workers employed by third-party employers. The federal appeals court decision overturned a lower court decision that struck down the new regulations just before they were scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of 2015.
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. Weil reinstated the U.S. Department of Labor’s regulations extending the federal minimum wage and overtime requirements for home health care workers employed by third-party employers. Today’s federal appeals court decision overturns a lower court decision that struck down the new regulation just before it was scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of 2015.
California Governor Brown signed legislation on July 13, 2015 that aims to clarify and improve California’s new paid sick leave law that requires employers to offer employees 3 days or 24 hours of paid sick leave per year as of July 1, 2015. The amendments are effective immediately.
This week, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the decision in Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Center, No. G048039 (February 10, 2015), where the California Court of Appeal partially invalidated the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order provision that allows employees in the health care industry to waive one of two required meal periods on shifts longer than eight hours.
In its recently published decision, the California Court of Appeal held that on-call rest breaks are permissible. In a nutshell, “although on-call hours constitute ‘hours worked,’ remaining available to work is not the same as performing work.” This case provides clarity on employers’ obligations for rest periods in the wake of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.
On January 14, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which decided Home Care Association of America v. Weil, vacated the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) regulation narrowing the definition of “companionship services” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In doing so, the court reinstated the…..
On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the on-call hours for security guards who work 24-hour shifts constituted compensable hours worked. Further, the court ruled that the guards’ employer could not exclude “sleep time” from the guards’ 24-hour shifts and in doing so rejected the analysis under earlier California
The court in Home Care Association of America v. Weil dealt another setback to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) regulations affecting home health care businesses. On December 31, 2014, the court issued an order temporarily staying the DOL’s new regulation narrowing…..
Just as many home health care agencies were gearing up for a major change to their businesses, a federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down the new U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulation extending the federal overtime and minimum wage requirements to home care workers employed by third-party businesses. The court’s…..
In Godfrey v, Oakland Port Services Corp., which was decided on October 28, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued a published decision holding that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt California’s meal and rest period requirements. The case is significant because it is…..
On August 27, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in the long-anticipated Russ-Will case, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 104 v. Duncan; Russ Will Mechanical, Inc., Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, No. A131489 (August 27, 2014). The court…..
On Monday, September 1 in a Labor Day speech, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced his proposal to increase the city’s minimum wage to $13.25 per hour by 2017, and to tie the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index going forward. California’s minimum wage increased this summer to $9…..
On June 30, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision addressing how trial courts should determine the appropriateness of class certification in cases where workers claim they were improperly classified as independent contractors. In a case brought by a group of newspaper carriers claiming that a newspaper company illegally treated them as independent contractors
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. S200923, California Supreme Court (May 29, 2014): On May 29, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that employers that are defending class action claims of misclassification must be permitted to present relevant defenses, even if the defenses require addressing individual issues. In what it called
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, No. S174475, (October 17, 2013): As expected following the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the California Supreme Court struck down its own rule on arbitration agreements. In Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, the state’s highest court categorically prohibited the
In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that employees need to be compensated for “on-call” hours if the employer substantially restricted their ability to engage in non-work related activities. However, the court also held that employers may exclude eight hours of sleep time from 24-hour shifts, if there was an agreement between the employer and employee to make such a deduction.
On June 21, the California Supreme Court vacated the submission on Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno and ordered that the parties file supplemental briefs to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. In that case, the high court confirmed its long-standing rule…..