New California Employment Laws Taking Effect January 1, 2012

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 by Transportation Lawyer

A number of new California employment laws are set to take effect January 1, 2012. Many of these new laws will have a significant impact on businesses operating in California. The following is a summary of a few of the more notable laws taking effect in the New Year: 

 

Wage Theft Prevention Act

Effective January 1, 2012, California Labor Code 2810.5 will require that employers provide the following information, in writing, to new employees upon hire:

 

1.    The rate or rates of pay and the basis for pay, i.e., whether the employee will be paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise. The rate information must also include overtime rates.

2.    Any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, including meal or lodging allowances.

3.    The regular payday designated by the employer.

4.    The name of the employer, including any "doing business as" names used by the employer.

5.    The physical address of the employer's main office or principal place of business. The mailing address must also be provided if it differs from the principal physical address.

6.    The telephone number of the employer.

7.    The name, address, and telephone number of the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier.

8.    Any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary.

 

These requirements apply to all non-exempt, non-union employees, and the duty to disclose this information continues after hiring.  When any of the information listed in this statute changes, employers must notify employees in writing within seven calendar days of the change.  The California Labor Commissioner posted a template for the required notice on the California Department of Industrial Relations’ web site:  http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Governor_signs_Wage_Theft_Protection_Act_of_2011.html
 

Retention of Payroll Records

California also changed the time frame that payroll records must be kept under Cal. Labor Code section 1174 from two to three years (we recommend four years because there is a four-year statute of limitations for many Labor Code violations).

 

Misclassification of Independent Contractors

California Senate Bill 459, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 9, 2011,

penalizes employers who willfully misclassify workers as independent contractors. The law defines “willful misclassification” as “avoiding employee status for an individual by voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying that individual as an independent contractor.” The law makes it illegal to charge a willfully misclassified worker a fee or to make pay deductions where such a fee or deduction would have violated the law if the worker had not been misclassified. 

 

Employers in violation of the law are subject to civil penalties between $5,000 and $15,000 for each violation, in addition to any other penalties or fines permitted by law. Violators may also be ordered to display (either on the employer’s website or, if there is none, at every location where a violation occurred) a notice for an entire year advising, among other things, that (1) the employer has committed a serious violation of the law by engaging in the willful misclassification of employees; (2) the employer has changed its business practices in order to avoid committing further violations; and (3) any employee who believes that he or she is being misclassified as an independent contractor may contact the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”).

 

Under other similar California statutes that prohibit “knowing,” “intentional,” and “voluntary” violations, courts have found that actions taken on the basis of a good faith belief in their legality do not give rise to liability. It is unclear whether this “good faith” defense will apply under the new misclassification law. Regardless, employers must be cautious when classifying employees as independent contractors, and must be able to explain and demonstrate the validity of the classification. 

 

Restriction on Use of Credit Checks

Starting in 2012, California employers may not, subject to certain exceptions, use consumer credit reports to evaluate candidates for employment. The use of credit reports to screen candidates for the following types of positions is not prohibited:

  • Managerial positions covered by California’s executive exemption
  • Positions involving regular access to certain personal financial, proprietary, or trade secret information
  • Positions involving regular access to at least $10,000 of money belonging to the employer or its clients or customers
  • Positions in which the applicant would be a signatory on the employer’s financial accounts or would have authority to transfer money or enter into financial agreements for the employer
  • Positions for which credit information is required to be disclosed by law

Workers Compensation Notices

Among other amendments to California’s workers compensation laws, new legislation now requires that workers compensation notices posted by employers include the website address and contact information for employees to obtain further information about the workers compensation claims process.

 

These and several other new laws add additional layers of compliance for California employers already struggling to persevere in an extraordinarily difficult business climate. We recommend California employers take time to review their employment policies and practices to ensure compliance with California’s employment laws, both new and old. Questions should be directed to Jim Hanson, Chris McNatt, Bob Browning, and Adam Smedstad.


New Study Attacks Independent Contractor Status of Port Drivers

Friday, December 10, 2010 by Transportation Lawyer

A new study released this week by the National Employment Law Project (“NELP”), a union advocacy coalition, Change to Win, and Rutgers University charges motor carriers with misclassifying more than 110,000 port truck drivers as independent contractors, as opposed to employees. The release of this study comes on the tails of a call to action by the American Trucking Association regarding Senate Bill 3786, the Fair Playing Field Act of 2010, as an offset for the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The Bill targets the use of independent contractors and requires the treasury to release guidelines to help clarify the status of individuals as independent contractors or employees for the purpose of federal employment taxes.

 

The NELP study, based on surveys from drivers at seven major ports, including Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and New Jersey, estimated that approximately 82% of port truck drivers are treated as independent contractors. The study criticizes the use of the independent contractor model, claiming, in part, drivers classified as independent contractors earned, on average, 18% less than employee drivers, are asked to use illegal and unsafe equipment, and face health problems imposed by high concentrations of diesel emissions.

 

The NELP study recommends that (1) policymakers adopt uniform rules requiring motor carriers to employ drivers to operate company owned equipment; (2) Congress pass the Clean Ports Act of 2010 to empower port authorities to attach misclassification; (3) the DOL, IRS, and state agencies take coordinated action to end misclassification; and (4) federal, state, and local governments create incentive funds for diesel emissions reduction contingent on proper classification.
 

9th Circuit Reverses Application of Choice of Law Provision in Misclassification Case

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 by Transportation Lawyer
The 9th Circuit reversed the decision of the lower court in the case of Narayan v. EGL on July 13, disregarding the choice of law provision contained in the contract between EGL and its contractors.  The provision specified that Texas law applied and the Northern District of California court used Texas law to find that the drivers were independent contractors.  The 9th Circuit reversed the finding of summary judgment, noting that California law must be applied, despite the choice of law provision in the contract, because the contractors were largely operating in California and should be subject to the California Labor Code.

Wisconsin Passes Employee Misclassification Law

Friday, May 28, 2010 by Transportation Lawyer

On May 12, 2010, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed into law legislation concerning the misclassification of employees. Effective January 1, 2011, Senate Bill 672 requires the Department of Workforce Development ("DWD") to establish a system ensuring the proper classification of workers under unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation and labor standards laws. The Wisconsin bill is yet another example of the ever changing landscape of independent contractor/employee misclassification issues.

The DWD is charged with, among other things, educating employers, employees and the public about classification of employees and receiving and investigating complaints alleging misclassification.  The bill further permits the DWD to require an employer to provide proof of maintaining proper employee records, including wage and hour information, and sufficient worker's compensation coverage for its employees. Failing to provide the requested information may result in the DWD serving a notice on the employer of the DWD's intent to issue an order requiring the employer to stop work at the locations specified in the notice. The employer will then have three business days to provide the requested information, and failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order requiring the employer to stop work at the location. The order is appealable.

UPS Supply Chain Solutions Settles Reclassification Case for $12.8 Million

Friday, February 19, 2010 by Transportation Lawyer
UPS Supply Chain Solutions settled a wage and hour class action lawsuit filed in California for $12.8 million.  At issue in the case was whether UPS had properly classified the drivers as independent contractors versus employees.  The case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California state law claims.  The average recovery for each member of the class under the FLSA claims was $9,500, and the average recovery for each member of the class under the California claims was in excess of $30,000.  No dispositive motions were filed in the case, so it is not clear how the court intended to rule on governing misclassification law.