California’s New Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law Effective Jan. 1, 2021

California employers are preparing to implement new policies and procedures to comply with California’s new Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law going into effect January 1, 2021, California A.B. 685. 

What is California A.B. 685: California’s New Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law

The new law creates reporting obligations requiring California employers to provide their employees, local public health officials, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) with written notice of Covid-19 cases. The law is in place effective January 1, 2021 through January 1, 2023. Failing to comply with the new law leaves California employers open to civil penalties and citations. 

Summary of California’s New Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law: 

California A.B. 685, California’s new Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law, is codified under California Labor Code section 6409.6 (and sections 6325 and 6432). Applicable sections define new requirements for California employers regarding the notification of employees, their subcontracted workers’ employees, union representatives, etc. of any suspected or confirmed cases of Covid-19. The new law also stipulates requirements regarding California employers’ obligation to report workplace “outbreaks” of Covid-19 to local health departments, and the appropriate agencies. Notification should occur within one business day of the possible exposure based on any confirmed positive case of Covid-19 in the workplace. 

Written Notice Requirements for California Employers:

When a California provides “written notice” of a potential Covid-19 exposure, the written notice may include any delivery method (hand delivery, email or text), as long as the delivery method allows the employee to receive the notice within one day of it being sent. The notice must be provided in both English and the language used/understood by the majority of the employees in the workforce. Notices of potential exposure should not include the name of the employee who tested positive for Covid-19 in order to protect the employee’s privacy. Employers are required to maintain a record of any written notice of possible Covid-19 exposure sent to employees for a minimum of three years. Employers must report any “Covid-19 outbreaks” to their local public health agency within 48 hours of learning of the situation. As of Dec. 3, 2002, a Covid-19 outbreak in a non-healthcare workplace is defined by the CDPH as having at least three probable or lab confirmed Covid-19 cases among workers at the same worksite within a 14-day period. 

California Employers Should Take Action to Comply with New Standards Now:

California employers should take action right away in order to coordinate documentation and tracking procedures, in addition to necessary safety processes and notification methods, to keep their workforce safe and comply with new requirements. California employers’ efforts to comply should involve: 

• Creating and implementing safe, effective procedures to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19 in the workplace. 

• Documenting and implementing disinfectant procedures for confirmed Covid-19 exposures in the workplace. 

• Developing an effective employee notification process for any potential Covid-19 exposures. 

• Developing applicable documentation and a process for notifying employees regarding Covid-19 benefits. 

If you need to discuss Covid-19 dangers in the workplace or if you need to file a California employment law class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did 7 Eleven Fail to Provide California Employees with Wages and a Place to Sit?

7‑Eleven® is a well known gas station and convenience store throughout the nation. The company started out as Southland Ice Company in Oak Cliff, Texas in 1927. In 1946, the store’s operating hours were a standard 7am to 11pm, and the company changed their name to 7 Eleven. In recent news, this popular convenience store with locations nationwide is making the news for alleged employment law violations. 

The Case: The 7 Eleven, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2020-00043637-CU-OE-CTL

7-Eleven faces a class action lawsuit alleging wrongful termination.

The Allegations Made Against 7 Eleven: 

In recent news, a class action wrongful termination lawsuit was filed alleging that 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to provide their California employees with accurate wages or suitable seating conditions on the job. The 7 Eleven class action lawsuit is pending in the San Diego Superior Court of the State of California. 

California Employers are Required to Compensate Employees for All Time Worked: 

According to the complaint, 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to compensate their California employees for the time they worked. Time worked, when referring to employment law violations, is defined as time an employee was under their employer’s control. For example, from time to time, 7 Eleven employees were allegedly interrupted during their meal breaks or rest periods by work assignments. As a result, employees were performing job duties “off the clock.” When an employee performs work off the clock, they are not being paid for time spent working, which is a violation of California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant was allegedly aware (or should have been aware) that the plaintiff in the case (and other similarly situated California employees) were working off the clock. And if an employer is aware that their employees are working off the clock, the employer is also aware that they are not providing payment to their employees for all hours worked. If allegations are true, 7 Eleven California employees were not being paid accurate minimum wage and overtime pay. 

Additional Allegations Made Against 7 Eleven in the Class Action: 

The 7 Eleven lawsuit also includes allegations of wrongful termination, and an allegation that the company failed to provide seating for employees who spent the majority of their time on the clock behind a counter. According to the lawsuit, the vast majority of work duties performed behind the counter can be reasonably accomplished while using a stool or other seat.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Wage and Hour Laws: Do They Extend to Offshore Workers?

A recent case, Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, brings to light an interesting question for employees stationed off the shore of California. Which state’s wage and hour laws apply to an employee? Is it the state the employer is located? Is it the state in which they applied and interviewed for the job? Is it the state in which they acknowledged receipt of employment documentation and contracts? Is it the state in which they live while they work offshore? These are the questions being asked in this case. 

The Case: Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County

Case Info: Case number B298318, in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District

In Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, three employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming their employers violated California laws pertaining to minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest periods, providing accurate wage statements, and maintaining accurate wage statement records. The employers moved for summary judgment arguing that California labor laws do not apply, but the trial court denied the motion. 

The Employment Situation of Gulf Offshore Logistics Employees Stationed Offshore:

According to lawsuit documents, employees of Gulf Offshore Logistics provided maintenance service for offshore oil platforms located outside California’s boundaries. The vessel transporting the employees to the oil platforms so they could perform their job duties docked in a California port. Employees reached the California port by flying in and out of Los Angeles, California. The vessel sailed through the Santa Barbara channel (located within California’s state law boundaries), but then sailed out of California waters to reach oil platforms in need of service. 

The Court of Appeals Found that California Labor Law Did Not Apply: 

Due to a number of notable facts, the Court of Appeals found that California Labor did not apply. Notable facts that were considered prior to the Court of Appeal’s decision included: 

• The employer, Gulf Offshore Logistics, were LLCs formed under Louisiana law. 

• Members were all Louisiana residents. 

• Employees applied for and interviewed for their jobs in Louisiana. 

• Employees acknowledged receipt of employment documents in Louisiana. 

• Employees did not reside in California. 

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals decided that Louisiana had more significant contacts with the parties involved and a greater interest in regulating this particular employer/employee relationship than the state of California. 

The California Supreme Court on Related Cases: 

The California Supreme Court decided two related cases - both concerning the application of California wage and hour law to employees performing work for employers (both in and out of California). The first is Ward v. United Airlines (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732. The second is Oman v. Delta Air Lines (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762. In Ward v. United Airlines, the Court considered the application of California’s wage settlement requirement and held that workers are “covered...if they perform the majority of their work in California.” The court also found that if they do not perform the majority of their work in any one state, they will be covered if they are based “for work purposes in California.” In Oman v. Delta Air Lines, the California Supreme Court extended the holding to Section 204 governing timing of wage payments. The court found that requirements regarding wage statements in this section apply only during those pay periods when the employee was based in California or performed work primarily in California. In both cases, the California Supreme Court stated it would not be appropriate to adopt a single test to determine application of California wage and hour law to multistate workers since it would vary depending on the statute and the situation. 

In Light of California Supreme Court Decisions, the Court of Appeals Adjusted their Findings: 

After the California Supreme Court decision on both the Ward and Oman cases, the Court of Appeals adjusted their stance on Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County. The Court of Appeals’ new decision was that the most relevant issue was where the work was performed. Gulf Offshore Logistics could seek further review from the California Supreme Court.                          

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it applies to multi-state employment arrangements, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Pending 2021 Cases for the California Supreme Court

With several potentially significant pending cases scheduled to go before the California Supreme Court in 2021, California employers and employees should consider the possible implications. 

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872, Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC676917, Second Appellate District, April 7, 2020). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case, Ducksworth and Pollock, allege race discrimination, and one of the Plaintiffs, Pollock, also alleges sexual harassment. 

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

According to the lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case were long-time customer service representatives at Tri-Modal Distribution Services or Tri-Modal. Neither of the two plaintiffs was promoted, but other customer service representatives were promoted. The Plaintiffs claim they were looked over for promotions because of discriminatory practices against African Americans, and filed suit citing the same allegation against Tri-Modal and two staffing agencies, Scotts Labor Leasing Company, and Pacific Leasing. 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The trial court granted summary judgment for Scotts and Pacific since they were not involved in Tri-Modal’s decision to promote or not promote any specific employee. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s summary judgment finding both staffing agencies free of liability for any discrimination claims based on promotion or failure to promote due to uninvolvement in staffing decisions at Tri-Modal. The district court also granted summary judgement for Tri-Modal’s Executive Vice President, overruling Pollock’s hearsay objection to a declaration. The district court concluded Pollock’s claims are barred because no administrative complaint was filed within one year of the incident (per Government Code Section 12960). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grants of summary judgment and held that the trial court concluded correctly regarding Government Code Section 12960. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts’ decisions, their decision could significantly increase liability for any discrimination allegations, particularly discrimination claims filed against joint employers like staffing agencies. Staffing agencies are typically not involved in day-to-day decisions regarding staffers they place at various clients’ operations, however, a dissenting opinion from the California Supreme Court on this case could mean more claims against California employers. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International: 2021 Sees Several Key Cases Heading to the California Supreme Court

While activity in the California courts was slow in 2020, there are several potentially significant cases on the horizon for 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state of California, including NVazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International. 

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (No. 17-16096 (9th Cir. 2019)). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Defendant in the case, Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. or Jan-Pro, licenses a system for marketing cleaning services to “regional master franchisees.” The corporation operates in multiple countries, including the USA. Regional master franchisees purchase a franchise that comes with exclusive operating rights in the designated “region.” Jan-Pro regional master franchisees are franchisors to “unit franchisees.” Jan-Pro has no contract in place with unit franchisees. Jan-Pro’s contracts are with master franchisors. Contracts with unit franchisees are between the unit franchisee and the master franchisor. Unit franchisees hire their own employees, and act according to their own devices. The Plaintiffs in this case, Vazquez, are former unit franchisees. Vazquez alleged that Jan-Pro’s three-tier business model was designed to misclassify janitors as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

The Plaintiff in the case, Vazquez, claims Jan-Pro violated employment law. The Plaintiff alleges that Jan Pro’s sophisticated three-tier franchising model was designed to misclassify workers. The district court dismissed the putative class of plaintiffs’ suit against the international business. The Ninth Circuit court vacated the district court’s dismissal, holding that Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018), which resulted in the adoption of the now standard ABC test to determine classification of California employees per California wage order laws, applied retroactively. The Ninth Circuit court remanded the case to district court for consideration on the merits in light of Dynamex. Two additional orders were published in connection to the original order from the Ninth Circuit Court. The panel certified to the California Supreme Court the issue of retroactive application of Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The question the California Supreme Court will need to decide when hearing Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. is whether Dynamex v. Superior Court, the case that set forth the ABC test for classification of independent contractors, is applicable retroactively. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.: 

If the California Supreme Court finds that Dynamex is found to apply retroactively, it’s possible that California misclassification claims could be reopened all the way back to before the 2018 Dyamex resolution. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: One of 2021’s Key California Employment Law Cases

California courts didn’t see a lot of activity in 2020, but that seems to be changing in 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state, including Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services. 

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, S258966. (B256232; 40

Cal.App.5th 444; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC372146). 

In 2021, Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The cases present two different issues. Does the violation of Labor Code 226.7 give rise to employment law claims under Labor Code sections 203 and 226 if the employer doesn’t include premium wages in the employee’s wage statements, but the wage statement does include the wages the employee earned for meal breaks? What prejudgment interest rate applies to unpaid premium wages owed due to Section 226.7? 

The Plaintiff, Naranjo, Claims Spectrum Security Services Violated California Labor Law: 

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, a class of security guards allege meal break violations and seek premium wages, as well as penalties for waiting times, and inaccurate wage statements, as well as attorney’s fees. When the Court of Appeals considered the case, they found that unpaid premium wages for meal periods violations do not entitle employees to penalties for inaccurate pay stubs or waiting time.

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

When the case appears before the California Supreme Court in 2021, the court will be expected to resolve a long-standing debate on recoverability of waiting time penalties for meal break and rest period violations. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the findings of the lower courts, potential penalties for California meal break and rest period violations would increase since violations could be compounded by any alleged pay stub penalties or any waiting time penalties. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood: Another Key 2021 California Employment Law Case

Most would agree that the California courts were pretty quiet throughout 2020, but that appears to be changing in 2021. As of now, the California Supreme Court is scheduled to see several significant employment law cases that could affect how employment law affects employers and employees throughout California. 

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood, Nos. B283218, Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct. No. BC586176

In 2021, Ferra v. Loews Hollywood is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The Plaintiff in the case appealed to the Supreme Court of California asking for clarification of Labor Code 226.7’s phrasing “regular rate of compensation” and what it means in a context where the employee in question receives numerous forms of wages for work performed on the job. 

The Plaintiff, Ferra, Claims Loews Hollywood Hotel Violated California Labor Law: 

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and three alleged classes of hourly employees working at Loews Hollywood Hotels, filed a class action. The Plaintiff alleges that the employer’s calculation of the premium payment was inaccurate because the company did not provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods as required by California labor law (Labor Code section 226.7). Based on the alleged miscalculations, the Plaintiff also alleges that Loews did not provide full payment for all hours worked due to shaving and rounding time from employee hours. The Court of Appeal found in favor of  Loew’s holding that the statute’s plain language, federal case precedent, and the statutory history all indicate a difference between the “regular rate of compensation” and the “regular rate of pay.” The court held that Loew’s “rounding policy” did not result in systematic undercompensation of Loew’s employees over time. 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

Discussion of the case has concerned parties pointing out (and urging the California Supreme Court to hold) that “regular rate of compensation” as pertaining to meal and rest breaks is in reference to the employee’s base hourly wage. This definition provides distinction between the two oft-confused phrases, since the term “regular rate of pay” generally includes non hourly compensation. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood:

California employers and employees should watch the Ferra v. Loews Hollywood case since the California Supreme Court’s decision could affect how wages earned based on meal period penalties are calculated. The regular rate used to calculate overtime seems cumbersome for meal period penalty calculations since the regular rate of pay could include annual or quarterly bonuses (some of which could occur after the missed meal period for which the penalty is being calculated). However, “regular rate of compensation” does sound very similar to “regular rate of pay” and federal district courts have ruled both ways on the issue, so many are interested to see which way the California Supreme Court will lean on this issue.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.