California Wrongful Termination Laws

Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2922, an employment relationship between an employer and an employee of an unspecified time period may be terminated at the will of either the employee or the employer.  This employment law rule governing the discharge of employees creates a presumption of at-will employment. However, the California at-will employment presumption can be overcome by employees if the employee can show evidence that the employer terminated the employee as a result of discrimination.

Furthermore, even where an employer does not actually terminate an employee, an employee can still bring an action for wrongful termination under California labor laws using the theory of constructive discharge. In order for an employee in California to successfully bring a claim for constructive discharge, the employee must be able to show that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign. If the employee can prove that the working conditions were truly intolerable, the employee may be able to recover damages under the constructive discharge theory for a violation of state labor laws.

Pursuant to California wrongful termination laws, constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may ultimately say, "I quit," the employment relationship is actually terminated involuntarily because the employer has intentionally created an intolerable working environment for the employee, against the employee's will and against California labor laws. As a result, under California labor laws, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.

Even though employees can sue employers for wrongful termination under California labor laws based on a constructive discharge theory, an employee cannot simply quit and sue the employer. The conditions giving rise to the employee’s resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious, known as intolerable in the legal work, to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer. Under California state employment laws, an essential component of a constructive discharge lawsuit against an employer is that the hostile working conditions must be so intolerable that any reasonable employee would resign rather than continue to work for the employer.

Why California Employers can actually Benefit by Violating State Labor Laws

The California class action lawsuit statute entices employers to commit Labor Code violations in two respects. Foremost, businesses can benefit from paying improper wages and taxes and trounce liability all together without ever arguing whether or not a violation was indeed committed. To achieve certification under California’s class action statute, the following requirements must be satisfied: (1) the parties must be numerous; (2) there must be an ascertainable class; (3) there must be a well-defined "community of interest" in the questions of law or fact affecting the parties to be represented; and (4) class treatment of employees' claims must be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The “community of interest” requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. The law requires employees to move for class certification before the action proceeds on the merits.

Employers have developed many effective techniques to manipulate these requirements to beat class certification. One approach employer’s use is to focus the court's attention on the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence. For example, employers often proffer individual anecdotal stories of liability, reshape the employees' theory of the case, and then claim that individual issues predominate. Moreover, opponents to certification use the “bait and switch” technique to confuse the trial court as to the issues of the case. In one case, for instance, the employer successfully convinced the court to deny class certification since the work of employees varied week by week and assignment to assignment. Moreover, employers can defeat class certification even where employees meet the numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequate representation requirements. 

The second incentive to commit Labor Code violations is that losing the certification battle does not mean the employer loses the lawsuit. Conversely, employers can still benefit since a class settlement, absent the assessment of civil penalties, can be a discount on labor received. California courts presume settlements are fair. Class counsel often persuades the class to settle due to the fact that it generally takes the case on a contingent fee and hopes to cash in on the investment. Since discovery with respect to certification is limited, attorney’s fees are not too costly at this point in the litigation. Thus, employers can pay the representative employees and attorneys handsomely to agree to the settlement, but pay the class members quarters on the dollar. 

This means that even when they lose the certification battle and decide to settle, employers still benefit financially. Employers are aware of this economic advantage of operating in the underground economy without being subject to civil penalties, as can be seen from the huge percentage of businesses that operate in violation of the Labor Code. In fact, employers even flout the fact that they violate California wage and hour laws and have been able to get away with the violations for such a long time.

California Overtime Laws- What time Should You get Paid for Working?

California typically defines work time somewhat more broadly than the Fair Labor Standards Act. While under federal employment law work time is paid when a company suffers or permits the employee to perform job duties, the state of California widens work time to include all that which a company suffers, permits, or “controls.” Set out below are the circumstances in which California’s broader definition of work time produces a different result.

California’s bigger description of work time, as that which a company suffers, permits or “controls,” has been construed to make extended commute time on company buses paid hours of work where the company requires workers to ride on the buses. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, travel as a passenger outside of the regular workday on an overnight trip is not considered to be work time. The time spent by workers on company-provided shuttles from a parking lot to a work site was found not to be paid where the workers did not have to ride the shuttles from parking lots to work, but could be dropped off at the work site.

On-call time is not paid if the employee can use the time spent on call primarily for his or her own benefit. Considerations in determining whether on-call time is work time for purposes of California wage and hour laws are geographical restrictions on the employee’s movement, required response time, nature of the employment relationship, including industry practice, and any other limitation on the employee’s ability to use the time for his or her own benefit. In determining whether on-call time is work time, the state does not give any deference to whether the company and employee have agreed to consider the on-call time to be noncompensable.

California labor laws do not specifically exclude from work time certain activities that are excluded from work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The activities which are excluded from work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act but not California state labor law include preliminary and after-work activities, commuting time in company-provided vehicles, and clothes changing and wash

CALIFORNIA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWS

Under California labor laws, namely California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, "reasonable accommodation" for purposes of handling employees with disabilities in the workplace is not clearly defined but instead explained through certain examples. The Americans with Disabilities Act governs the federal approach for workplace disability rights. The definition of the “reasonable accommodation” that California employers are required by law to give employees with disabilities in the state are virtually identical under both California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

California law affirms that employers are not allowed to bar or to discharge an employee from employment or to discriminate against employees by demoting or disciplining them based on physical disability because doing so can constitute a violation of California labor laws. compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. However, it is important to distinguish this type of illegal employer conduct from times when the employer fires an employee that happens to have a physical or mental disability and is not capable of adequately completing the work even though the employee is given reasonable accommodations, which would not be considered a violation of employee rights and state labor laws. 

Under California Labor Laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, California employers are not allowed to fire an employee based on a physical disability even though the employee is able to complete the job with reasonable accommodations. In the event that an employer violates the labor law by discriminating against workers with physical or mental disabilities, in order to win a lawsuit for money and damages, the employee must be able to prove that the employer in fact fired the employee because of the employee’s disability and that the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation. 

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employees must show that they were a qualified individual with a disability if they want to sue their former employer for violating the employment rights of workers with disabilities. Under federal law, in the event that the workers tries to get an accommodation by getting reassigned to an open job in another area of the company, the workers can satisfy the "qualified individual with a disability" requirement if the worker can show that he or she is able to complete the critical jobs of the open job position with or without accommodation. Additionally, for the employee to recover money under Federal laws  governing employee with disability rights, the worker must prove that the job applied for existed and that it was not a promotion for the employee to get the job but instead an equivalent job position. 

ECOLAB OVERTIME PAY CLASS ACTION

Ecolab is a global developer and marketer of premium cleaning, sanitizing, pest elimination, maintenance and repair products and services for the world’s hospitality, institutional and industrial markets. On November 2, 2010, this employment lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of California alleging that Ecolab intentionally misclassified maintenance workers as exempt from overtime laws in order to avoid paying them overtime compensation.   

As part of Ecolab’s business, the company employs individuals whose primary job duty is repairing and providing maintenance on leased commercial machines of Ecolab. These employees have the job titles of “Route Manager,” “Route Sales Manager,” “Sales Route Specialist,” “Service Installer” and “Service Professional.” As a matter of company policy, practice, and procedure, Ecolab has unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively classified every Service Employee as exempt based on job title alone, failed to pay the required overtime compensation, and otherwise failed to comply with all applicable labor laws with respect to these Service Employees. 

As defined by Ecolab’s comprehensive corporate policies and procedures, the primary job duty of maintenance workers employed by Ecolab was and is to provide repair, maintenance, and installation services on leased commercial machines in accordance with Ecolab’s established specific procedures and protocols which govern and control every aspect of the work performed by the Service Employees. The primary job duty of these service employees was not and is not to make sales and/or obtain orders or contracts for services. 

As a result, the employees claim that they do not meet the tests of an overtime exemption under either California law or the FLSA and are entitled to overtime compensation for all the hours they worked in excess of eight in a workday and forty in a workweek. 

For further information about this overtime lawsuit filed against Ecolab, contact employment law lawyers in San Francisco. You can also contact our labor lawyers in the San Jose Area. 

California Employment Lawsuit Filed Against Lockheed Martin

Rix vs. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Case No. 3:2009cv02063, an employment lawsuit, was filed on September 21, 2009 against Lockheed Martin in the Southern District of California by industrial security employees. The security employees allege that as a matter of company policy, Lockheed Martin unlawfully classified every Industrial Security Representative as exempt from overtime pay based on job title alone and failed to pay the Industrial Security Representatives overtime compensation as required by California overtime laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under California overtime laws, employees are entitled to overtime compensation at one and a half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight in a workday or 40 in a workweek. This California overtime rule does not apply when employees exercise a requisite level of independent discretion and judgment because when employees have the freedom to make decisions that impact the company in significant manners, the employees can usually be classified as exempt administrative employees.

The Industrial Security Representatives believe they are nonexempt from overtime pay and therefore have been cheated out of overtime wages because Lockheed Martin has established specific procedures and protocols in the form of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual and project specific security classification guides which govern and control every aspect of the work performed by the Industrial Security Representative. These centralized rules mirror the realities of the workplace evidencing a uniformity of work among the Industrial Security Representative and negate any exercise of independent judgment and discretion, which would mean that the overtime exemptions do not apply to the Industrial Security Representatives. 

For further information about this lawsuit contact an employment law lawyer in San Diego or an overtime wage lawyer in San Francisco. 

California Overtime Rights - Call Center Customer Support Workers

Call Center Customer Service Employees
A call center is a central customer service operation where employees, usually with the job titles of "customer care specialists" or "customer service representatives" handle telephone calls for a compamny regarding technical support or the sale of products and goods. Call center customer support employees are used in many different sectors of business, including mail-order catalog houses, telemarketing companies, computer product help desks, banks, financial services and insurance groups, transportation and freight handling firms, hotels, and information technology (IT) companies.

Call center customer support workers are entitled to the benefit of California labor laws. Under CA labor laws, companies are required to keep records of the wages and hours that call center employees work for the employer’s benefit. Our employment law lawyers often find that call center customer service employees do not receive the accurate itemized wage statements clearly revealing all of the information that is required by California labor laws and regulations.

A major issue with respect to the wage and hour rights of call center workers is that employers fail to pay them for all hours worked. Hours worked includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer's premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal activity of the workday to the end of the last principal activity of the workday. This includes the time call center workers spending booting up and shutting down their computers pre-shift and post-shift. An example of common violations is when employees working in call centers spend time starting computers before shifts to download work instructions, computer applications, and work-related emails.

A major issue in the call center industry is that many companies pay customer service workers a salary without additional overtime pay for working more than eight hours in a workday or forty hours in a workweek. A salary, by itself, does not exempt employees from the minimum wage or from overtime. Whether employees are exempt from minimum wage and/or overtime depends on their job duties and responsibilities as well as the salary paid. Sometimes, in call centers, salaried employees do not meet all the requirements specified by the regulations to be considered as exempt.

Contact a San Diego employment law lawyer today for a free consultation about your overtime rights in the San Francisco or Southern California.