Employment Law History: California Increases Minimum Wage

California is making history again, but this time the history will be recorded in the legal treatises studied by employment law attorneys. When the governor signed Senate Bill 3, California became the first state in the nation to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022. This increase will provide six million California residents with increased earnings.

Many cite this increase as a big step in the fight for gender justice as six out of every ten minimum wage workers in the state are female (with women of color being disproportionately represented in the group). 23% of minimum wage employees in the nation are women of color. In comparison, women of color only represent 16% of the American workforce as a whole. More than 1/3 of California’s minimum wage employees also have children under their care for which they need to provide financial support.

The numbers regarding the minimum wage worker demographic in California made Senate Bill 3 a lead bill in the 2016 Stronger California campaign that many have heard discussed. The campaign was chaired by Equal Rights Advocates with top advocacy coalitions acting as co-lead. It has become known as a historic bid to ensure that California’s women and communities as a whole will enjoy economic security. This 2016 Stronger California campaign also enjoyed a celebratory victory in 2015 when the California Fair Pay Act was passed, creating the strongest equal pay law in the United States.

Many California minimum wage workers see the increase as a tremendous help that will drastically alleviate financial problems associated with low income. Today’s minimum wage workers tend to worry check-to-check, work multiple jobs, and stress about having enough to cover the bare necessities. This makes Senate Bill 3 very popular amongst this group. They see it as a positive move in the right direction and hope that the positive movement will continue. There’s still more work to be done in order to ensure economic security. The Stronger California campaign also works toward policies and budget changes to address issues with: poverty, accessibility of child care, promotion of fair pay and job opportunities, and family friendly employment.

If you have questions about California’s Senate Bill 3 or the 2016 Stronger California campaign, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik. 

Lyft Settles California Overtime Lawsuit

Lyft and Uber are both very similar businesses that allow any person to sign up as a driver and when they are needed, they go to the given pick up spot and take their customer where ever they ask to go. The companies take pride in being very lenient and easy - allowing their workers to have a full personal life while still keeping a good paying job.

After being hit with several lawsuits filed towards Lyft from thousands of the company's drivers, saying they were seen as independent contractors rather than employees, Lyft has decided to settle. This agreement to settle leaves Uber, a similar car ride service, alone to face the driver's lawsuits that state that they should get sick days and overtime pay alike all other employees. 

According to resources Lyft has agreed to the final terms of the lawsuit and also to paying a total of $12.25 million to the affected drivers. The settlement will give the drivers conditions that apply more to the independent contractor, even though the lawsuit was filed to achieve employee status.

The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is that the employee receives more benefits and rights, but is more controlled by their employer. Whereas an independent contractor has far more flexibility in their schedule and payment, but do not get overtime pay, sick days, or any other benefits that an employee may receive.

The drivers claim that they were not being given the benefits, but were being controlled more than they should have been. Lyft has addressed the benefits matter by saying hey will be giving "portable benefits" to their workers but have not stated what this entails.

Arbitration clauses were in both Uber's and Lyft's driver agreements, but were disregarded by the plaintiffs when the lawsuits were filed originally. Lyft has agreed to pay for the arbitration fees as part of the settlement. Uber's arbitration clause was rendered invalid by the judge, but the same didn't go for the clause in Lyft's agreement.

If you are in need of assistance regarding a misclassification in the workplace or unpaid overtime, please contact the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We would be glad to assist you. 

Yellowstone Worker Sees Red: Claiming Retaliation Over Asbestos Report

A Yellowstone National Park maintenance worker named Jon Kline reported that he and several other employees at the park were exposed to asbestos at Old Faithful Inn, a hundred year old lodge/hotel at the park. After submitting the report, Kline claims he was subjected to workplace retaliation from the park concession company, Xanterra Parks & Resorts, a subsidiary of Anschutz Corp. The company holds contracts to operate facilities focused on tourist attraction at a number of U.S. national parks including: Oregon’s Crater Lake, California’s Death Valley, Arizona’s Grand Canyon, and Utah’s Zion National Park.

Kline alleges that Xanterra Parks & Resort began to give him poor work reviews and eventually declined his contract renewal after the incident with asbestos exposure last March that he properly reported to authorities. The employee retaliation claim that Kline filed is still pending. In describing the circumstances where he and others were exposed to asbestos he states that they were told “not to worry about it” and that it was “safe.” The exposure occurred while he was part of a crew working on steam lines wrapped in asbestos at the Old Faithful Inn, originally opened in 1904. His opinion of the situation was that it was not worry free or particularly safe.

Asbestos got loose from an old pipe insulation when broken pipes that occurred during the winter began to emit steam in March. The pipes were restored in order to provide heat to the west wing before the plumbing could be turned on. The asbestos was present in at least eight rooms in the west wing of the seven-story structure known as Old Faithful. Workers were not alerted to the presence of asbestos before they tore into the walls to get to the ruptures. The asbestos was cleaned up by a certified company prior to opening the popular Yellowstone hotel to guests the following May. The Old Faithful Inn is ranked as one of the world’s largest log structures and is very well known. In fact, it’s one of the most stunning and immediately recognizable hotels in the entire U.S. national park system.

As a result of four workplace safety citations due to exposure, Xanterra paid $15,300 in fines last September. Workers involved were not wearing appropriate safety gear. They were provided with inadequate respirators thus exposing them to the cancer-causing substance (according to representatives from the Wyoming Occupational Safety and Health Administrator). Xanterra representatives declined to comment on the case or respond to allegations, but did state that the safety of their employees and guests are a top priority.

If you have questions regarding workplace retaliation and how to recognize labor law violations in southern California, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.

Chipotle Employee Claims of “Sexually Charged Atmosphere” Result in Lawsuit

A former Chipotle employee, Ariana Castaneda, filed a lawsuit against Chipotle claiming that the managers at the Woodland Hills store where she was employed created a “sexually charged atmosphere” and behaved inappropriately in the workplace, harassing her regularly. Castaneda claims that her Chipotle managers intentionally ordered her uniform shirt too small repeatedly. She worked for Chipotle from December 2013 through February 10th, when she was fired. She was employed as a lead kitchen worker at the restaurant on Canoga Avenue.

Sexual Harassment: harassment in the workplace (or in any professional or social situation) that involves the making of unwanted sexual advances, obscene remarks, obscene gestures, etc.

Discrimination: unjustly treating or treating prejudicially different categories or types of people. It is most commonly referenced in relation to negative treatment in the workplace due to race, age, religion or sex.

Workplace Retaliation: action on the part of co-workers, supervisors or employers to make an individual in the workplace afraid to complain, stand up for their rights or seek legal recourse. Retaliation is often confused with harassment and creating a hostile workplace or environment, but it is specifically aimed at those who have information or situational knowledge that others do not want reported.

Wrongful Termination: when an employee’s employment or contractual agreement for work is terminated by their employer under circumstances where the termination breaches terms agreed on by contract, terms of employment or by law.

Castaneda’s lawsuit also claims that she was not the only one being sexually harassed. She states that the four managers on site sexually harassed other female workers at the southern California Chipotle location and that they even used the security cameras to spy on female customers that they through were attractive. She seeks unspecified damages on allegations including: discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

The plaintiff named Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. along with the four managers in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit. She claims that her position at the restaurant required her to wear a certain uniform, but that her black uniform shirt was purposely ordered too small by the managers. Castaneda, when she complained about the shirt being too small and requesting a larger size be ordered was asked by a manager if it was because her [breasts] were too big. While another shirt was ordered, it was also too small. Castaneda also alleges that one of the Chipotle managers would forcibly hug her and also touch her underneath her shirt when his hands were cold from holding ice or cold drinks, etc. She also cited inappropriate comments managers made about other female employees of a sexual nature, mocking comments made to her personally due to a negative remark that was made on the popular review website, Yelp.

If you are suffering from sexual harassment in the work place or fear that you were wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik so we can help you. 

Wrongful Termination and Retaliation Suit: California Firefighter Awarded $2.3 Million

In recent news, Todd Milan, 47, was awarded $2.3 million by a Solano County Superior Court jury in a civil wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit. Milan claimed that he was targeted by a couple of his superior officers after he informed the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of procedure irregularities during a residential fire that occurred on September 29, 2011. When entering the disabled man’s burning mobile home, Milan assumed Captain Erick Diez would enter alongside him. Diez never entered the burning structure, which was a violation of regulations requiring that firefighters always work in pairs. Diez’ failure to enter the structure left Milan inside alone for 90 seconds. Milan also claims that Diez did not have his gloves on when responding to the fire. The resident of the mobile home fire later died.

 

Workplace Retaliation: Similar to harassment and “hostile workplace,” workplace retaliation is not actually about people in the workplace exacting revenge or getting back at someone else for their behavior. Instead, it is focused more on making them afraid to complain or to assert their right. It is a subtle distinction, but necessary to delineate in certain situations where violations of employment law have occurred.  

 

Milan also claims that Fire Chief Paige Meyer advised Milan that he would be okay as long as his account of the fire matched those of other firefighters at the scene. Milan’s allegations made it clear that he claimed the City of Vallejo and the Fire Department covered up the events that occurred at this particular fire, which was the focus of an investigation by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. 

 

After this occurrence, Milan took an examination, which he did not pass. He claims that the Fire Department’s refusal to allow him to re-take the examination was in retaliation for his previous actions in reporting departures from procedure at the September, 29th, 2011 mobile home fire. At the time of the incident in question, Milan was an apprentice firefighter. He is now a teacher for a class for paramedics.

 

After a nine-week trial, the jury deliberated for two days. They awarded Milan with $2.3 million in compensation for past and future wage losses as well as emotional distress suffered as a result of the event.

 

If you have information regarding workplace retaliation, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Caretaker Sues Betty White for Unpaid Wages and Rest Period Violations

In recent news, Betty White is being sued by a former caretaker. The caretaker turned plaintiff was a long time, live-in employee named Anita Maynard. Maynard filed suit in Los Angeles alleging that Betty White did not pay her overtime and did not allow her breaks as required by California state labor law.

Betty White is most well known for her work on the TV show, Golden Girls. The popular TV show featured four older women who lived together in Miami, Florida that were experiencing the joys and pains and annoyances of their “golden years.” Betty White played the role of the spacey, but sweet Rose alongside Dorothy, Blanche and Sophia (Dorothy’s mom in the show). The show is widely known and many recognize it from the theme song along, “Thank You for Being a Friend.” The actress is now 94 years old.

Maynard claims that she was a live-in domestic worker for Betty White for over 20 years. During this time, she alleges that White did not provide her with payment for overtime hours even though she put in more than 14 hours on a typical day. Maynard’s complaint, includes additional allegations:

·       That White required Maynard to work six days/week without overtime rates for the sixth day.

·       That since discontinuing employment on March 11th, Maynard has not received all of her earned wages or vacation pay due.

·       That she earned less than the legal minimum wage according to California state labor law.

Maynard seeks wages owed, penalties and attorney’s fees through the court. A representative for Betty White responded to the legal actions by stating that Betty White has worked with thousands of people throughout her lifetime and none of them have anything negative to say about the well-loved actress. She went on to describe Betty as a kind person who is simply nice to everyone she runs into and will continue to make her purpose in life making other people happy.

If you need additional information on what qualifies for overtime pay and/or how to recognize violations of wage and hour laws, please contact one of the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Sharing of Tips Between Workers: Appeals Court Upholds Limit

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) ruled that businesses could not enforce a policy of tip sharing amongst workers even if their tipped employees are paid minimum wage. The ruling upheld a 2011 U.S. Labor Department rule in a 2-1 decision. In upholding the rule, the 9th Circuit noted that it was “reasonable” and appropriately consistent with the Congress’s goal to make sure that tips stay with employees who received them for their service.

 

Definitions to Know: What is “Tip Sharing Among Workers?”

 

When employers, supervisors or businesses collect tips that are left by customers for their waiters, casino dealers or other service employees that are then “shared” with backend support staff (i.e. dishwashers, bussers, hosts, etc.)

 

The 9th Circuit overturned district courts in both Nevada and Oregon. The ruling largely applies in those states where employers are required to provide workers with minimum wage in addition to any tips received: California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Minnesota, and Alaska. Previously, the labor department banned employers from using the distribution of “shared tips” to employees who do not normally receive tips (i.e. backend workers).

 

The basis for this legislation is that the tip received never belongs to the employer and therefore the employer does not have the authority or right to take it and redistribute it – it is not the employer’s money. Those in support of the rule prohibiting tip sharing urge employers to turn to higher pay for backend employees instead of using “tips” from other staff to subsidize a low pay rate.

 

While, the discussion of tip sharing is far from over, those in support of the 2011 U.S. Labor Department rule preventing enforced policies of tip sharing amongst workers, see this ruling as a move in a positive direction. Others question the effect that this movement will have on the pay of backend workers who depended upon the additional cash to supplement their income.

 

If you have questions regarding the legality of company policies such as tip sharing amongst workers, get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.