Unpaid Interns Now Protected from Sexual Harassment

Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill introduced by Berkeley Assembly member Nancy Skinner that protects unpaid interns and other unpaid volunteers from sexual harassment in the workplace. The governor signed the Assembly Bill on Tuesday. It expands Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights so that people in the workplace who are unpaid are included in the protection against sexual harassment in the workplace in California.

Skinner argues that basic civil rights should obviously be extended to all including interns and volunteers who are working it the workplace regardless of pay rate or no pay. They deserve the same legal protections against discrimination and harassment as paid employees. This was in response to a ruling last year by a federal district court in New York that ruled that the law doesn’t apply to unpaid interns because they are not technically employees. 

The New York case was based on allegations by a Syracuse University student that she was sexually harassed, i.e. groped and kissed by a supervisor on the job during her media company internship. She also claims that after she refused his sexual advances that he retaliated against her.

California is now the 3^rd state in the country to explicitly ban sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace specifically directed towards unpaid interns. Protection is also offered for gender-based discrimination through the new California law. Other states that have similar laws include: Oregon, New York, and the District of Columbia.

If you have any questions regarding discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace whether you are an employee or an intern, please get in touch with the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Ruling of California Supreme Court: Federal Aviation Authorization Act Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Break Claims

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court will affect truck drivers throughout California. The finding that the Federal Aviation Authorization Act does not preempt California meal and rest break claims means that any truck driver in or through California is entitled to take a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period prior to their fifth (5^th) hour of work. Drivers are entitled to this benefit regardless of the crossing of state lines during their route or the payment of overtime to the driver.

The issue originated with a meal break class action lawsuit filed against Penske Logistics that Penske won at the district court level. The panel of judges held that the meal and rest break laws in California are unrelated to Penske’s “prices, routes or services” and would therefore not be preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The appeals court also stated that it was never intended to preempt general state transportation safety, etc.

The meal and rest break law will add costs for motor carriers and motor carriers being affected are, of course, disappointed with the decision. The court defended their ruling stating that the law does not “set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly.”

The decision is excellent news for truck drivers on California roads.

For more information on California meal and rest break laws, contact your Southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Yahoo Executive Sued for Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Termination

Nan Shi, a principal software engineer for Yahoo filed against Maria Zhang, senior director of engineering for Yahoo Mobile on July 8^th. The complaint was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. According to the complaint Maria Zhang, the Yahoo executive, sexually harassed a woman who worked under her, Nan Shi.

Nan Shi worked for Yahoo since February 2013. She alleges that Zhang coerced her into engaging in sexual acts on numerous occasions in Sunnyvale, California with promises of a “bright future” dependent upon her agreement to participate. Nan Shi is seeking monetary and punitive damages. Yahoo is also named as a defendant in the suit. A representative for Yahoo advised that they believe there is no basis for the claims made by Nan Shi and that Maria Zhang is an exemplary Yahoo executive. They intend to fight the allegations and clear her name.  

Zhang’s mobile company, Alike, was acquired by Yahoo in 2013. She had previously worked with Microsoft and Zillow. In the complaint filed, Shi accuses Zhang of downgrading her performance reviews unfairly. Further accusations are aimed at the Yahoo human resources department personnel who Shi claims refused to conduct an investigation when she complained about advances being made by her direct supervisor.  According to Shi, instead of conducting an investigation into the matter as she requested, they put her on unpaid leave and eventually terminated her from the company.

For more information on sexual harassment in the work place or wrongful termination suits contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Exempt and Non-Exempt California Employees Affected by Increase in California’s Minimum Wage

On July 1, 2014, California raised its minimum wage from $8/hour to $9/hour. Both non-exempt and exempt salaried employees will be affected. An additional increase to $10/hour will take effect on January 1, 2016. Some employers view the change as inconsequential as they already have to meet local minimum wage requirements for their non-exempt employees, but there will in fact be a noticeable impact because the change applies to exempt status employees and commissioned inside sales employees.

To understand the potential changes the increase in minimum wage could have for exempt employees you must first consider the requirements for the exempt status. In order to be classified as exempt, an employee must meet certain requirements regarding the type of work they are performing. In addition, they must meet the minimum salary test. California law requires that all employees classified as exempt earn a monthly salary that is at least twice the minimum required by the state for a full time employee (working 40 hours per week). ) Prior to the increase in California’s minimum wage, this left the minimum monthly salary for a full time, exempt employee at $33,280. The change that took effect on July 1, 2014 bumps it up to $37,440. By 2016, this number will be even higher, bringing exempt employees’ minimum salary to $41,600 per year in order to meet the minimum salary test. 

In regard to commissioned inside sales employees, the new California minimum wage applies to overtime pay. California law dictates that an inside salesperson is exempt from overtime pay if they earn more than 1.5 times the state minimum wage and more than half of their income is commission pay. After July 1, 2014, an inside sales person must earn at least $13.51 per hour in order to be exempt from overtime pay. With the arrival of 2016, these employees will need to be making at least $15.01 per hour in order to retain exempt status.

Employers who disregard of delay the necessary adjustment of applicable employee pay rates and exemption statuses could face costly penalties and interest on back pay due employees, possible overtime premium pay (as a result of the loss of exempt status for some workers) and more. If you have questions regarding how the change to minimum wage law may apply to you, get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

California Law Protecting Whistleblowers Lacking Work Authorization from Retaliation

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill No. 2751 into being. The Bill amends a recently enacted law prohibiting employers from retaliating against undocumented workers who engage in protected activity. The amendment is in reference to Assembly Bill No. 263, which restricted employers’ ability to put disciplinary action in place for employees who misrepresented their personal information (criminal history, immigration status, etc.)

The new law makes it illegal under California law for employers to retaliate by targeting immigration status when employees lacking work authorization are exercising a protected right such as filing a complaint for unpaid wages. The new law would prohibit employers from responding to whistleblowers lacking proper work authorization with threats to contact immigration authorities, discharging the employee, etc. California law now prohibits this type of action unless employee updates to personal information are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge necessary for their job. The original bill’s intended purpose was to protect employees who are updating their work-authorization status, but it can be read to include protection for those wishing to update other information based on prior misrepresentations like criminal history. The amendment (AB 2751) clarifies the scope of the bill (AB 263) so that it specifically protects those employees who are attempting to update personal information in relation to name, social security number or federal employment authorization documentation. The amendment’s clarification allows employers to discipline/terminate employees who provides false statements not related to immigrate status, but continues to prohibit retaliation or disciplinary action against any workers who update records on lawful changes to immigration related information and documentation.

If you are unsure whether or not the new California law applies to your situation, you should contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik immediately for legal advice regarding your specific situation. 

Commission Wage Allocation Limited by California Supreme Court Ruling

The California Supreme Court ruling on June 14, 2014, limited commission wage allocation by holding that employers could not satisfy the California compensation requirements for commission sales exemptions by assigning commission wages paid in one pay period to alternate pay periods. The decision could have a notable impact on employers who regularly pay their employees on a commission basis. It could have a particularly significant impact on those who pay commission sales employees a base salary that falls near the minimum wage requirement.

California’s commissioned employee exemption requires (among other things) employee’s earnings to exceed one and a half times minimum wage. It also requires that more than half of the employee’s compensation be commissions.

In Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. Case No. S204804, the employer (Time Warner) argued that their former account executive wasn’t entitled to overtime pay due to the fact that she was a “commissioned employee” and was therefore exempt. As noted above, there are limitations as to which employees can fall under the commissioned employee exemption. In the case of Time Warner, Peabody was paid an hourly wage of $9.61. This did not fulfill the one and half times minimum wage minimum pay requirement. The wages were paid every other week. Total compensation of the plaintiff did exceed the minimum one and a half times minimum wage requirement when the hourly was combined with the commissions paid to the employee. Commissions were paid only once/month. The commissions paid were earned throughout the previous month.

Due to the pay structure set up by Time Warner, the employee’s compensation fell short of the one and a half times minimum wage requirement during some pay periods. It is also notable that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the employee worked 45 hours per week and was not paid any overtime. In an attempt to meet requirements set down in the commission employee exemption, Time Warner suggested that employee commissions should be reallocated to be paid during earlier pay periods (in which they were earned) rather than the bi-weekly pay periods that were in place. They felt that satisfying the exemption’s minimum wage earnings requirement in this manner should free them from the obligation to pay commission employees overtime. The California Supreme Court rejected their argument. It was concluded that the Time Warner’s attribution of commission wages to meet minimum requirements was impermissible.

If you need to discuss implications of the recent ruling and how it could affect you as a commission employee, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, the Southern California employment law experts. 

California Labor Lawsuit Led to Class Action v. Barnes & Noble

A class action suit against Barnes & Noble based out of New York has roots in California. The California labor lawsuit will continue – a New York judge refused to grant summary judgment for the defendants. Barnes & Noble, the major chain and online bookseller, is being accused of avoiding the payment of overtime to employees by purposefully misclassifying them as exempt. Allegations would leave Barnes & Noble in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Court documents indicate that until 2005, Barnes & Noble classified all assistant store managers as FLSA exempt. This meant that no assistant store managers were eligible for overtime pay on hours worked above and beyond the standard workweek or workday. Generally speaking, managers (who are paid a salary and perform managerial tasks) are properly exempt in just this fashion. However, Barnes & Noble assistant store managers in California filed suit citing violations of California labor law.

The assistant store managers who filed suit in this California case made allegations that they performed tasks that fell outside of the managerial realm. They also indicated that despite their official title (assistant store manager) they had no actual authority over other employees.

The lawsuit resulted in Barnes & Noble reclassifying its assistant store managers in California as nonexempt. As nonexempt employees, they can now qualify for overtime pay. But Barnes & Noble apparently did not make the change at other stores in other locations throughout the country until a much later date.

Barnes & Noble did eventually (in 2010) reclassify all of its assistant managers as nonexempt throughout the states. This was the basis for Barnes & Noble’s petition for summary judgment in the lawsuit (originally brought in 2005 as an action citing California labor code). It would seem that the FLSA violations ended in June 2010, but the wider lawsuit was filed in January 2013. The defendants cited that the lawsuit fell outside the FLSA’s two-year statue of limitations.  

US District Court Judge John Koeltl disagreed, pointing out that the FLSA two-year limit extends to three years when there is proof, evidence or suspicion that there was a willful violation. Considering that Barnes & Noble reclassified California based assistant managers as a result of the California labor lawsuit, but failed to do so nationwide for 5 years, it would be easy to suggest that there was at least some evidence that a jury could perceive as willful violation.  

The three plaintiffs (named) in the current, New York based lawsuit, are all former assistant store managers for Barnes & Noble. They note that their duties were not limited to managerial duties, they often performed tasks performed by other non-exempt employees, such as working the cash register, processing product returns, etc.

If you feel you have been misclassified as an exempt employee, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.