Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

In a huge win for California employers, the California Court of Appeals recently confirmed that courts have discretion to strike claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) if the claims will be unmanageable at trial.  This decision will help employers defeat—or significantly pare down—the broad and unwieldy claims for PAGA penalties that have become popular with the plaintiffs’ bar.

Imagine this: you are an employer in California, and you recently hired a new employee.  You ran your own background check, which did not turn up any criminal convictions.  However, the employee’s job duties include submitting online applications to a government agency, which requires the employee to complete a Live Scan background check with the Department of Justice.  The Live Scan reveals that the employee has a past criminal conviction that will prevent her from submitting the applications.  You terminate the employee, and she tells you the conviction was judicially dismissed.  What do you do?

A bill recently signed into law in California will require private employers to submit annual “pay data reports” to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) beginning in March 2021. The California law implements a previously announced program rolled back by the Trump administration to expand federal reporting requirements to include employee pay data by race, gender, and ethnicity.

Employee commute time in California generally is not compensable as “time worked” unless the employee is subject to the employer’s control and unable to use that time for his or her own purposes.  But is an employee subject to the employer’s control if she is required to carry her employer’s equipment and tools in her personal vehicle?  According to a California Court of Appeal, the answer could depend on the size of the vehicle.

Under California law, an employee’s prior salary cannot be used to justify a pay disparity.  Now, the same is true under federal law – at least in the Ninth Circuit.

In Rizo v. Yovino, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that an employee’s prior pay history is not a “factor other than sex” that can justify a pay gap under the Federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”).  This outcome may not surprise employers in California, where state law expressly prohibits using prior salary as a basis for a pay disparity.  But unlike California’s statute, the federal law does not directly prohibit consideration of prior pay.  Rather, the Ninth Circuit looked beyond the plain language of the statute and examined the purpose of the “catch-all” exception, which permits pay differentials based on “any factor other than sex.” The Court concluded that this broadly worded exception “comprises only job-related factors.”

Does an individual who receives a single text message, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), have standing to sue in federal court?  The answer, for now, depends on where the lawsuit is filed.

The California Labor Code requires employers to reimburse employees for certain expenses, but it’s not always clear which expenses should be reimbursed by the employer, and which expenses should be borne by employees.  Here’s a list of Five Things to Remember About Employee Reimbursements to help California employers navigate this area of the law.

In a positive development for employers, the California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a class action alleging willful violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA” or “Act”).  In Culberson v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, the plaintiffs alleged Disney willfully violated two provisions of the FCRA: (1) plaintiffs alleged Disney’s disclosures letting job applicants know they may be subject to a consumer report were not contained in a standalone document; and (2) plaintiffs alleged Disney rejected some applicants based on information in their consumer reports without first providing the notice required by the FCRA.  In affirming summary judgment, the court concluded that it need not decide whether Disney violated the FCRA, because the court found that any such violation was not willful. 

Each year, the California Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) identifies proposed state legislation that the Chamber believes “will decimate economic and job growth in California.”  The Chamber refers to these bills as “Job Killers.” In March, the Chamber identified the first two Job Killers of 2019: AB 51 and SB 1. Both bills would negatively impact retailers in California. You can view the Chamber’s Job Killer site here.

Continue Reading

What must a private business do to ensure that its website complies with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which requires that places of public accommodation provide “full and equal enjoyment” to individuals with disabilities?  As discussed in a previous post, the ADA was enacted before widespread use of the Internet and does not directly address whether websites are places of public accommodation, or what a business must do so that its website complies with the ADA.  The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has publicly stated that websites must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, but has yet to articulate specific technical requirements for websites.

What are newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom’s views on #MeToo legislation, and how do they compare to those of his predecessor, Jerry Brown?  We may soon have answers to these questions thanks to a pair of bills introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), which reintroduce harassment-related proposals vetoed by Governor Brown.

Sexual harassment is a recurring theme in the bills signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown on September 30, 2018.  These new laws, which take effect on January 1, 2019, continue the trend of expanding protections for California employees.

 Hush-Money – Three of the bills signed by Governor Brown on September 30 target settlement agreements that prohibit disclosure of sexual harassment claims. AB 3109 makes void and unenforceable any provision in a contract or settlement agreement that waives a party’s right to testify in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding concerning alleged criminal conduct or sexual harassment.  SB 820 prohibits settlement agreements from including a provision that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to claims of sexual assault and sexual harassment.  However, this bill does not prohibit confidentiality of the settlement amount.  SB 1300 voids any agreement in which an employee forfeits his or her right to disclose unlawful acts in the workplace, including acts of sexual harassment.

Redefining The Hostile Work Environment Standard – SB 1300 also declares that a single incident of harassing conduct could be sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment in certain circumstances.

California is the land of employment legislation, and 2018 is shaping up to be another year of change. We are less than six months into the year, and already several bills that could significantly impact California businesses—for better or for worse—are pending in the California legislature.

Continue Reading

When a franchisor provides a California franchisee with detailed instructions about how to operate the franchise business, but allows the franchisee to manage its own workforce, can the franchisor be held liable for the franchisee’s wage and hour violations?  The California Court of Appeals found the answer to be no under the facts in Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 2018 WL 1959472 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).  There, the Court of Appeals concluded Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US (“Shell”), was not liable for the alleged wage and hour violations of the company that operated its Shell-branded gas stations throughout California.

On April 3, 2018, San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance, the city and county’s so-called “ban-the-box” legislation that limits how private employers can use an applicant’s criminal history in employment decisions.  The amendments, which take effect on October 1, 2018, expand the scope and penalties of the San Francisco ordinance and add to the growing framework of ban-the-box legislation across California.  The complete text of the amendment can be found here.

[From Hunton’s Retail Blog]  If you are a retailer, you may have policies and procedures in place regarding who can speak on behalf of your company. Such policies may generally instruct employees not to speak to the press as a representative of the company, and to direct all media inquiries to a particular person or department. Similarly, if you are a retailer, you may have a policy in place that instructs employees to forward any reference requests to your human resources department. These commonplace policies allow retailers to control their public image and protect employee ...

Imagine that you are a company with two openings for the same position.  After selecting the two most qualified candidates, you offer each candidate a salary equal to his or her prior salary, plus 5%, pursuant to your established policy for setting new hire salaries.  On its face, your policy has nothing to do with sex, but does it violate the Federal Equal Pay Act?  This was the issue addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the recent decision Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372, slip op. at 11–12 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2017).

Last Monday, the California Supreme Court in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. clarified the meaning of California’s requirement that all working employees be provided with suitable seating “when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” Answering three questions raised by the Ninth Circuit, the Court ruled that:

(1) The “nature of the work” refers to an employee’s tasks performed at a given location for which a right to a suitable seat is claimed, rather than a “holistic” consideration of the entire range of an employee’s duties anywhere on the jobsite during a complete shift. If the tasks being performed at a given location reasonably permit sitting, and provision of a seat would not interfere with performance of any other tasks that may require standing, a seat is called for;

(2) Whether the nature of the work reasonably permits sitting is a question to be determined objectively based on the totality of the circumstances. An employer’s business judgment and the physical layout of the workplace are relevant but not dispositive factors. The inquiry focuses on the nature of the work, not an individual employee’s characteristics; and

(3) The nature of the work aside, if an employer argues there is no suitable seat available, the burden is on the employer to prove unavailability.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is asking the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to recognize that discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation constitutes unlawful discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC advances this argument in an amicus brief in support of Barbara Burrows, a lesbian college professor and administrator who claims she was subjected to sex discrimination by her former employer, the College of Central Florida, based on her same-sex marriage and how she looked and acted. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the College, holding that Burrows’s sex discrimination claim was “merely a repackaged claim for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is not cognizable under Title VII.” Burrows appealed, and the case is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

Under a new California law that took effect on January 1, 2016, California employers may face civil penalties of up to $10,000 for misusing E-Verify, the federal electronic employment verification system some employers use to verify employment eligibility of newly hired employees.

The new E-Verify law makes it more difficult for some California employers to comply with both federal and state laws relating to workers’ employment eligibility.

Over the weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill aimed at prohibiting mandatory employment arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  The bill also would have made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate or retaliate against an employee who refused to sign an arbitration agreement.  The Governor’s veto marks a victory for the dozens of business associations (and California employers) that opposed the bill.