We’ve written
throughout the year about new employment laws that take effect in California in
2016. But as the year winds down, here’s a handy list of the most significant
ones (with links to our earlier entries). Unless noted otherwise, the laws take
effect on January 1, 2016.
1.
California’s
Fair Pay Act (SB 358; Labor Code § 1197.5): Where existing law requires that men and
women working at the same location receive equal pay for equal work, the new
law requires that they receive equal pay for substantially similar work (whatever
that means) even if they work in different locations. In addition, if
there are disparities, the burden is on the employer to show that the entire
disparity is justified by such factors as education, training, and
experience. Systems that base compensation on seniority, merit, and production
are also acceptable. This one has the potential to open the proverbial
floodgates of litigation. You can read more here.
2. Restrictions on E-Verify Use (AB 622; Labor Code § 2814): U.S. employers must verify that the
workers they hire are authorized to work in this country. But this new statute
restricts their ability to use the E-Verify system to do so. Unless required by federal law or as a condition of
receiving federal funds, employers can only check the status of applicants
who’ve received an offer but have yet to start work. In addition, the employer
needs to notify the workers promptly if the E-Verify system doesn’t confirm
that they are authorized to work in the U.S. You can read more here.
3.
New Minimum
Compensation for Exempt Computer Software Professionals (Labor Code §
515.5): Effective January 1, 2016, for computer software professionals to
be considered exempt, they must (among other things) be paid a minimum of
$41.85 per hour or $87,185.14 per year. You can read more here.
4. Scaling Back Certain PAGA Claims (AB 1506; Labor Code §§ 2699, 2699.3, and 2699.5): California’s Private
Attorneys General Act (or PAGA) allows private employees to sue to recover
penalties that the state labor commissioner could have collected. Under
the new law, an employer would have an opportunity to cure a PAGA violation
based on failure to include the beginning and end dates of the pay period
and the employer’s proper name and address. This one took effect October 2,
2015. You can read more here.
5.
Expansion of
Individual Liability for Wage Violations (SB 588; Labor Code §§ 690.020 et seq.): The benignly named “A Fair
Day’s Pay Act“ purportedly intends to help employees who can’t collect
judgments because their employers change their names or hide their
assets. But the bill isn’t limited to those situations. It allows the
Labor Commissioner to conduct hearings to determine whether a “person acting
on behalf of an employer” should be held personally liable for an employer’s
violations. The Labor Commissioner would also be able to levy those
individuals’ accounts or property to enforce a judgment and seek payment from
successor employers under criteria that are entirely too vague to understand or
apply. You can read more here.
6. Removal of the Term “Alien” from the Labor Code (SB 432): Other than removing a term from a statute that causes offense, this is a
mostly symbolic gesture. You can read more here.
7.
Clarification of
Paid Sick Leave Requirements (AB 304): This bill, which took effect in July, clarifies how to calculate the
rate of pay for purposes of paid sick leave. You can read more here.
8.
Meal Periods for
Healthcare Workers Who Work More than 12 Hours (SB 237; Labor Code § 516): This bill maintained the status quo by abrogating
the holding of Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center.
You can read more here.
9. Piece-Rate Compensation (AB 1513; Labor Code § 226.2): We’ve discussed problems that arise when employees
paid on a piece-rate basis are not paid for every hour they work. Under this bill, no matter how much employees are paid per piece, they
must also be paid for rest periods and other “nonproductive time.”
10. Protection for employees when a relative working for the same employer
engages in protected activity (AB 1509). Under this law, if a married couple is working for the same
employer, and the husband complains of discrimination, that’s not a legal basis
to take action against the wife.
11. Protection for Requesting Accommodation (AB 987): This bill amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act to clarify that
employers can’t retaliate against employees for requesting accommodation for a
disability or religious observance. (I thought that was pretty clear
before.)
Takeaway: The burdens on operating in California continue to become more
onerous. As a result, it becomes increasingly important for employers to be
proactive in determining before they get sued where
they’re vulnerable. In terms of time, expense, stress, disruption, and damage
to a company’s reputation, an audit of HR practices is way cheaper than a
lawsuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment