Tag: California

San Mateo Gardens Teaches College District a Lesson on Picking Thorny Subsequent Review Procedure

The California Supreme Court recently addressed an important California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue: Who decides whether CEQA’s subsequent review provisions are applicable when there are changes to an adopted project? Subsequent review provisions include a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND), a supplemental EIR, or an addendum to an EIR or ND.  When a project that has been reviewed and finalized under CEQA is altered, what type of review process under CEQA is required, if any?  As we said before on Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District et al., (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937 (Friends of the College), the Court determined that the lead agency makes this determination.  The question that the lead agency should be analyzing is whether the original document “retains some informational value” – if it does, then CEQA’s subsequent review procedures apply.  Should the lead agency’s decision be challenged, then the Court must decide whether “substantial evidence” supports the lead agency’s conclusion.

The First District Court of Appeal thus took up applying this standard on remand. In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District et al., (2017 WL *1829176) (San Mateo Gardens), the Court of Appeal upheld the San Mateo County Community College District’s determination that it could proceed under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions.  The District had previously analyzed its project, including the demolition or renovation of some buildings on a San Mateo college campus, through a mitigated negative declaration (MND).  After a failure to obtain funding for renovations to the “Building 20 complex,” the District altered the project to include demolition of Building 20 and its associated gardens (the centerpiece of the dispute) and to renovate two other buildings that were previously slated for demolition.  The District determined that these changes would “not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed” in the original MND, and thus proceeded to adopt the alteration through a subsequent review procedure document called an addendum.

The Court of Appeal held that the District’s decisions to proceed by CEQA’s subsequent review procedures was supported by substantial evidence. The relevant changes only altered the treatment of three buildings while leaving alone plans to demolish 14 others with attendant mitigation measures.

That the District could proceed by CEQA’s subsequent review procedures, however, only answers the first question. The subsidiary, and more “critical” issue, is “to determine whether the agency has properly determined how to comply with its obligations under those provisions.” Friends of the College, 1 Cal.5th at 953.  In other words, which subsequent review procedure is correct to use.  The Court of Appeal held that a more rigorous standard of review is applicable at this second step when a project is originally accompanied by a negative declaration than when an approved project is originally analyzed through an EIR.  This more rigorous standard looks to whether the negative declaration will require a “major revision.”  A major revision is required when “there is ‘substantial evidence that the changes to a project for which a negative declaration was previously approved might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered in connection with the project as originally approved.’ ” San Mateo Gardens, 2017 WL *1829176 (quoting Friends of the College, 1 Cal.5th at 959).  If the project was previously analyzed through an EIR, however, the agency may proceed without a subsequent EIR so long as substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that no major revisions to the original document are necessary.

It is at this critical second step that the District failed. The Court of Appeal determined that there was substantial evidence that the altered project might have a significant “aesthetic impact”, which is a cognizable environmental impact under CEQA.  The “Building 20 complex” demolition would include removal of gardens which were of particular value to the college community for aesthetic purposes.  The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the District violated CEQA in analyzing the altered project through an addendum when a subsequent EIR or MND was necessary.

The takeaway from this case is that lead agencies will have to be especially keen on determining the impact of project changes when the original project is adopted by a negative declaration. While the original document may retain some residual “informational value,” and thus allow CEQA’s subsequent review procedures, it may be difficult to show that project changes do not require some type of further environmental review. It is the lead agencyiess responsibility to determine the need for and type of further review, but that decision must be based upon substantial evidence.

This article was written by David H. McCray and Jacob P. Duginski of Beveridge & Diamond P.C.

Proceed with Caution: Pay Differential Based on Prior Salary Can Be Lawful

pay differentialEqual Pay litigation continues to cause angst for employers doing business in California. In addition to the federal Equal Pay Act, employers operating in California must comply with laws requiring equal pay for men and women for substantially similar work unless a statutory defense applies. The landscape of the equal pay protections is ever-changing, having been recently expanded in California to include not only sex but also race and ethnicity. Additionally, the new amendments to the California Fair Pay Act preclude employers from using prior salary as the sole justification for a pay differential. State and local jurisdictions are also considering and passing more legislation prohibiting prospective employers from even asking applicants about salary history as a way to minimize historical pay disparities.

Despite legislative efforts to curb inquiries into salary history, employers may be feeling more confident after a recent win in Rizo v. Yovino, where the Ninth Circuit confirmed that prior salary can be a “factor other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act for pay differences, provided that the employer shows that prior salary “effectuate[s] some business policy” and the employer uses prior salary “reasonably in light of [its] stated purposes as well as other practices.” However, the employer has the burden of proof on this defense. They also must exercise caution on whether they can inquire about prospective or current employees’ prior salaries depending on the application of local and/or state laws that preclude such an examination. And under California’s amended Fair Pay Act, relying on prior salary history alone to justify a pay differential is prohibited.

In Rizo v. Yovino, a female math consultant for a school district sued the superintendent, claiming a violation of the Equal Pay Act because she was paid less than the other math consultants in the School District, all of whom were male. The superintendent argued that the School District’s pay schedule was based on the previous salaries of the employees, and the difference in pay between Rizo and her male counterparts was based on a factor other than sex. The District Court denied the superintendent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and concluded that “when an employer bases a pay structure ‘exclusively on prior wages,’ any resulting pay differential between men and women is not based on any other factor other than sex.”

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the superintendent offered four business reasons for using a standard pay structure that was based primarily on salary history. Indeed, the superintendent contended the policy to use prior salary (1) was objective; (2) encouraged candidates to seek employment with the County because they would receive a 5% pay increase over current salary; (3) prevented favoritism and ensured consistency in application; and (4) was a judicious use of taxpayer dollars. Upon remand, the superintendent would have the burden of proving the business reasons articulated and that the use of prior salary was reasonable.

Despite this recent ruling in Rizo v. Yovino, employers doing business in California should continue to be vigilant in their compensation practices to ensure that they are not paying employees differently based on sex, race, or ethnicity, or basing the new compensation solely on prior salary. Keeping up to date on the hot issue of whether and how employers can ask about and use prior salary information is critical to compliance.

ARTICLE BY Anne Cherry Barnett & Michele Haydel Gehrke of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Calculation of California Paid Sick Leave May Spook Employers

As if paid sick leave wasn’t scary enough!  From accrual methods, to the protections provided to the time off, to the varying (and ever growing) laws in different jurisdictions, paid sick leave can be spooky.  What about how to calculate the rate of pay for the paid sick leave??  On October 11, 2016, the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) issued an opinion letter regarding its interpretation under California’s Healthy Workplace Health Families Act of 2014 (the “California Paid Sick Leave Law”) of the method of calculation of paid sick leave for employees paid by commissions and exempt employees who are given an annual, non-discretionary bonus.

California paid sick leave, State SealAs discussed in our July 13, 2015 article, the California legislature amended the California Paid Sick Leave Law to address, amongst other topics, the calculation of the rate of pay for sick leave.  In the Amendment, the legislature provided the following clarification regarding calculation of the rate of pay of sick time:

  • Non-exempt employees. The Amendment required an employer to calculate paid sick time for non-exempt employees using one of the following methods: (1) calculate the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek; OR (2) divide the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.

  • Exempt employees. The Amendment required that paid sick time for “exempt employees” be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time. This provision of the Amendment did not limit the categories of exempt employees which this calculation method applied to.

Now the DLSE has issued an opinion letter further interpreting these provisions.

How Should Employers Calculate Paid Sick Leave for Employees Only Receiving Commissions?

According to the DLSE’s opinion letter, employers must calculate paid sick leave payments for employees “who are almost entirely paid by commissions” as if they are non-exempt employees under the Amendment.  This opinion letter takes the position that only those employees exempt under one of the white collar exemptions (professional, executive, or administrative exemptions) may be paid their sick leave as an “exempt employee” under the Amendment.  The DLSE’s opinion letter maintains that employees classified as exempt under the outside or inside sales exemptions are not deemed to be “exempt” for purposes of the Amendment’s calculation of the rate of pay for sick leave.

How Should Employers Calculate Paid Sick Leave for Exempt Employees Who Receive an Annual Bonus?

The DLSE’s opinion letter then addressed how an employer calculates paid sick leave for an exempt employee under the white collar exemptions and who also receives a non-discretionary annual bonus at the end of each year.  The DLSE reasoned that a non-discretionary bonus does not figure into the salary of an exempt employee, and that under the Amendment, the employee would be paid an amount of pay equal to his or her regular salary for the sick day.

ARTICLE BY Susan E. Groff & Melissa L. Yen of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Bristol-Myers Squibb Agrees To Pay $30 million To Settle Whistleblower Case Brought Under The California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act

Bristol-Myers Squibb whistleblower
Intimidation of whistleblower concept and whistle blower stress symbol representing the pressure experienced for exposing corruption with shadows of people who do not follw the rules as a red whistle shaped as a human head.

In 1993, the California Legislature enacted the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFPA”) in a unique effort to combat rampant insurance fraud that was driving up the cost of insurance premiums for citizens throughout the state. In particular, California lawmakers sought to deter fraudulent activity related to automotive insurance, workers’ compensation, and healthcare claims.

With regard to the latter, the IFPA expressly recognizes that “[h]ealth insurance fraud is a particular problem for health insurance policyholders. Although there are no precise figures, it is believed that fraudulent activities account for billions of dollars annually in added health care costs nationally. Health care fraud causes losses in premium dollars and increases health care costs unnecessarily.”

One of the specific fraudulent practices the IFPA is designed to prevent is the payment of unlawful kickbacks to doctors for prescribing certain medicines.

This month, after nearly a decade of litigation, Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to pay $30 million to settle an IFPA lawsuit that was filed in 2007 by three former Bristol-Myers employees. The whistleblowers alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb violated the IFPA by employing and using sales representatives for the purpose of defrauding private commercial health insurers by using kickbacks to procure patients or clients. The kickbacks were designed to increase physician prescriptions of several drugs produced by Bristol-Myers Squibb including Pravachol, used to lower cholesterol. Enticements included:

  • Box suites at sporting events where physicians were provided tickets, food, drinks, and parking.
  • Enrollment in a Lakers basketball camp for doctors and their children.
  • Pre-paid golf outings at luxurious golf courses.
  • Tickets for physicians and their families to see Broadway plays in California cities.
  • Monetary incentives given to doctors responsible for prescription-drug decisions for formularies.
  • Lavish dinners, resort hotel trips, and concert tickets, given to doctors who were large-volume prescribers, to induce more prescriptions in the future.

In addition to the $30 million payment, the settlement agreement with the California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones requires Bristol-Myers Squibb to affirm its commitment to abiding by California laws regulating its sales representatives’ interactions with doctors, including compliance with pertinent provisions of the IFPA.

The Bristol-Meyers settlement is a prime example of how regular citizens can use the IFPA to hold wrongdoers accountable for fraudulent acts that harm the public. The IFPA provides for civil penalties of $5,000 and $10,000 per insurance claim that is made as a result of fraud (so, here, every prescription doctors wrote as a result of the kickback scheme that was then submitted for payment by an insurer), plus an additional assessment of up to three times the amount of each claim for compensation.  In addition, the IFPA vests the court with authority to grant additional relief as needed to protect the public interest. This additional relief can take the form of an injunction, which prohibits future fraudulent conduct—and can change industry practices.

How the IFPA works

Codified at section 1871 of the California Insurance Code, the California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (“IFPA”) allows members of the public to bring whistleblower lawsuits in the name of the State against anyone who submits a fraudulent insurance claim to a California insurance provider. Some of the most common types of fraud prohibited by the IFPA include:

  • Providing kickbacks to doctors to prescribe certain medications.
  • Billing for healthcare services that were not provided.
  • Submitting multiple claims for a single health service.
  • Knowingly causing an auto accident for the purpose of submitting false insurance claims.
  • Underreporting the number of employees to avoid paying proper workers’ compensation insurance.
  • Providing kickbacks to insurance agents for sending business to a particular automotive repair business.

Once an IFPA violation has been identified, the complaint is filed under seal in state court and served on the local district attorney and the California insurance commissioner. The district attorney and insurance commissioner then have 60 days (or longer) to decide whether or not to intervene in the case. If either the district attorney or the commissioner decides to intervene, government attorneys may take a leading role in the prosecution, or they may allow the relator (the technical term for the whistleblower or other private citizen who initiates the lawsuit) to take the lead with the government in a supporting role.

In cases where government attorneys intervene to assist with the prosecution of the case, the relator is entitled to collect 30-40% of any recovery from the defendant, whether that recovery is achieved through settlement or a favorable judgment. For purposes of determining the relator’s share, the “total recovery” is the amount remaining after the government and the relator have been reimbursed for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred during the case.

If the government does not intervene, the relator may proceed with the case with her own counsel. If she chooses to proceed without the government’s help, she stands to recover 40-50% of any eventual recovery. Whether the government intervenes or not, the exact percentage of the relator’s recovery will depend upon “the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action.” Moreover, if the court determines that the relator’s case is based primarily on information that was already publicly available, such as news articles or public hearings, the relator’s share of the recovery is reduced to a maximum of 10% of the recovery.

In addition to steep penalties for fraudulent acts and generous payments to the relator in successful cases, the IFPA has specific provisions aimed at protecting whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting fraudulent practices. The Act states that employees who suffer retaliation as a result of their involvement in reporting insurance fraud are entitled to complete relief, which includes reinstatement in a position with seniority equal to what the employee would have had absent the retaliation, plus twice the amount of back pay the employee is due, with interest. In addition, employees who are discriminated against in violation of the statute are entitled to attorneys’ fees and reasonable litigation costs.

ARTICLE BY Kristen L. Sagafi of Tycko & Zavareei LLP

© 2016 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

E-Cigarette Explosion Injuries in California

E-CigaretteWe are seeing a rising number of incidents where E-Cigarettes are malfunctioning, catching fire or even exploding and causing serious bodily injury.  What started as an “alternative” to regular cigarettes, has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise where these products are selling millions of units all over the world including California.  I am seeing more storefronts, especially in urban areas like Los Angeles, selling “electronic cigs” , “vapes” , “vapor pens”, “Vaping” and “Vapor” devices.  Unfortunately, these products have flooded into the marketplace in CA and across the U.S. without much early regulation or quality control.  This had led to issues where the products are heating up to a dangerous level, exploding and causing many types of injuries.

What is causing E-Cigs to Blow Up?

E-Cigarettes  are meant to mimic the sensation of traditional smoking by releasing a vapor to the user.  The process by which this takes place is a heating element inside the device that brings the liquid vapor solution to a boiling point.  This heating element must have a power source and that source in almost all types of vaping products is a lithium ion battery.  The problem arises when this heating process causes the electrolytes in the battery to overheat, expand and rupture.  The danger of such an explosion is further amplified by the fact that the batteries are located at the end of a cylindrical tube that is often made of either plastic or fairly low-strength metals like aluminum. The combustion can cause all or part of the E-Cigarette to be propelled outward and into the face, neck, hands or arms of the user.

Examples of E-Cigarette Malfunctions Causing Serious Injury

There have been numerous examples in California and around the U.S. where the malfunction and explosion of e-cigs have caused serious bodily harm including the following:

  • A 26 year old in Tustin, CA had to be rushed into emergency surgery when an e-cig exploded in his mouth.  A small piece of the apparatus was lodged in his mouth and had to be surgically removed.  He also sustained second degree burns to his face and lost several teeth.

  • A man in Bakersfield, CA had to have his left (dominant hand) index finger amputated when a device exploded as he was putting it to his mouth to smoke.

  • A jury in Riverside County awarded a lady $1.9 Million dollars against the distributor of e-cigarettes due to injuries sustained after the combustion of the device in use.

  • A retired Los Angeles Galaxy soccer player filed suit after suffered facial damage that made him “unrecognizable”.  This case is still pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

The potential legal responsibility for e-cigarette injuries

California, like most states, has laws that are meant to protect consumers and allow for compensation if they are injured by any type of product that is either negligently manufactured or negligent in its design.  Causes of action for recovery of damages may include so called “strict products liability”, failing to warn users of the potential dangers of product use and breaches of express or implied warranties.  The problem becomes that many of these products are being sold by “mom and pop” retailers that may not have insurance coverage.  Holding both the manufacturers and distributors are possible under California products liability laws, however, many of these devices are being manufactured in China and other places and tracing the origin of the product can be difficult. It may also be difficult enforcing a money judgment against a foreign company.  This leaves personal injury attorneys having to do a little further investigation into other possible defendants such as U.S. companies that import the products into the states.

Once litigation has commenced, other hurdles still remain.  One of the main counter arguments is that the victim was “comparatively at fault” for their own injury by their use or alleged “misuse” of the e-cigarette vaping devices.  These arguments can be overcome by a quality personal injury law firm familiar with product defect claims.  For example, there are many consumer products such as cell phones that are prone to heating up with use but, have not been found to explode.  Therefore, the average consumer would not consider this to be a likely scenario.

The bottom line is that e-cigarettes are being sold by the millions to consumers all over California from Los Angeles to the  San Francisco bay area. When used as a normal consumer would (i.e. in a manner same or similar to a regular cigarette), the devices should not heat up to the point where they explode and send shrapnel into the hands, face and body of the user.

ARTICLE BY Steven M. Sweat of Steven M. Sweat, APC

Copyright © 2016 · Steven Sweat

California Proposition 65: Beep Beep, BPA Labeling

California proposition 65California proposes to amend Prop 65 warning requirements for BPA in canned and bottled foods and beverages.

  • In May 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added bisphenol A (BPA) to the California proposition 65 list as a reproductive toxicant. On April 18, 2016, OEHHA implemented an emergency regulation for BPA, providing a safe harbor warning strategy to address exposures to this chemical from packaged foods and beverages sold at retail.  The emergency rulemaking allowed the use of point-of-sale (POS) signage to indicate exposures from BPA present in cans, lids, and caps of packaged foods and beverages at retail stores until October 17, 2016.

  • On July 22, 2016, OEHHA issued a proposed rule that would permit POS signage for BPA until December 30, 2017. The proposed rule is substantially similar to the emergency regulations promulgated earlier this year.  However, there is a significant difference in the proposal for foods that: (1) are covered under the POS signage requirement (i.e., BPA present in the can coating, lid, or cap); and (2) do not bear an on-label BPA warning. The proposal would require manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, or distributors of foods in BPA-containing packages to send OEHHA specific information about the products to post on the “lead agency website” (in addition to sending similar information to retailers).  The proposal focuses on BPA that is intentionally used in food packaging.  OEHHA does not want manufacturers sending in information for posting on the lead agency website where BPA is unintentionally present.

  • OEHHA anticipates that by December 30, 2017, manufacturers either will have eliminated BPA from product packaging, labeled their products with a BPA warning, or provided retailers with shelf tags and signs. The final compliance option produces some confusion, as OEHHA has stated that part of the rationale for the emergency rulemaking was to avoid there being hundreds of shelf tags on retail shelves.  A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for September 12 and comments are due by September 26.

ARTICLE BY Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman of Keller and Heckman LLP

© 2016 Keller and Heckman LLP

California Will Resume Enforcement of The Requirement To Electronically Submit Certified Payroll Records

On July 20, 2016, California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) issued a press release stating DIR enforcement of a contractor and subcontractor’s requirement to submit Certified Payroll Recordscertified payroll records (“CPRs”) using DIR’s online system will resume on August 1. DIR clarified that the requirement to keep CPRs has not changed. Previously, DIR suspended enforcement of filing CPRs electronically because of problems with the system and improvements. However, employers should have continued to maintain CPRs and the ability to file them electronically was operational. The key difference is now DIR will enforce the filing requirement effective August 1st. See press release

ARTICLE BY Jonathan A. Siegel of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Cloud-Seeding – Make it Rain, Make it Stop: Monopoly on Weather?

They call it “cloud-seeding.” It’s a process by which clouds are injected with a chemical to induce rain. It sounds a little like science fiction, but it’s happening in California—where droughts are deadly—and in other states across the nation. As scientific weather modification becomes more common and weather contractors are brought in to induce climate change, we have to wonder: Might there one day be a monopoly on weather?

It is hard to imagine a commodity more in demand than the weather. Imagine a world where you could literally place an order for rain. The science known as “geoengineering” is an intentional, methodical intervention into the Earth’s natural climate system in order to bring about and counteract climate change. Cloud seeding has been used in Los Angeles County to battle the environmentally disastrous repercussions of drought, inducing much-needed rainfall. As a result, an approximate 15% increase rainfall has been estimated.

Cloud, Rain, Cloud-seedingSo how do companies hired to help with drought conditions literally “make it rain?” They use generators to shoot silver iodide into the clouds to produce more rain. It’s interesting to imagine the experiments conducted to test that model. However, many patents have been filed for weather modification systems of numerous varieties. If there are companies that know how to make it rain, you have to believe there are companies that know how to make it stop. Where rain might be needed to counteract detrimentally dry conditions in one region, like drought in California, dry conditions might equally be needed in another region to prevent damage caused by over-saturation—like flash flooding in Texas. Just as drought causes depletion of water reserves and spoilage of crops, too much rain can lead to excessive erosion, landslides, and sinkholes. Can weather contractors stop that as well? You bet – by seeding clouds with polymers that absorb aqueous solutions. You see, there’s an answer for everything.

These weather-defying acts are not without consequences, however. Study findings and weather contractors concur: rain inducement in one particular area can affect other areas in downwind regions. In other words, rain here may mean drought there. Flood-prevention here, may mean sinkholes and landslides elsewhere. Once you start tinkering with nature, the ripple effects are almost unpredictable. It would seem fiddling with the clouds in one area would require monitoring and likely more fiddling in neighboring regions. This is where we saw a potential weather conglomerate development. If it is possible to control all aspects, it could be possible for one conglomerate corporation to control weather everywhere. They might even create business by drumming up a drought in order to induce more orders for rain. Without competition, the sky is literally the limit as to what the Waldorf of Weather could charge for just one summer sprinkle. Then think about the military uses. Creating fog or heavy cloud cover over certain foreign regions to shield drones, heavy rains and winds over enemy campsites to prevent an invasion. Like many companies that now boast world market domination, initial growth for weather contractors might be spawned by the most profitable occurrence for most manufacturers of military-use products: a war.

While this type of growth may seem like pure speculation, cloud-seeding is happening now. Companies are being hired to both induce and stop rain, with the incumbent legal ramifications that must follow. We predict a growing need for geo engineering experts, as well as law firms to draft weather modification contracts, represent weather contractors in adverse weather liability suits, as well as ensure fair competition among the weather contractors.

ARTICLE BY Annie Dike of IMS ExpertServices

© Copyright 2002-2016 IMS ExpertServices, All Rights Reserved.

Three California Municipalities Enact New Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Laws

paid sick leave minimum wageThe trend toward local regulation of employment laws continues in California with three new local wage and hour enactments.

San Diego

On June 7, 2016, San Diego voters passed a ballot initiative containing two provisions for hourly workers. First, San Diego’s new minimum wage will be $10.50 per hour once the ballot results are confirmed, which is expected to be in mid-July.  Second, San Diego will have its own paid sick leave policy of five days (40 hours) – which is in excess of the state law that allows employers to limit use of accrued paid sick leave to three days (24 hours).

Like the state law, San Diego’s paid sick leave will accrue at one hour for every 30 hours worked and cannot be used until after 90 days of employment. Also like the state law, San Diego’s sick leave initiative allows accrued leave to be front loaded or accrued, and it must be carried over year to year.

The San Diego law differs from state law in that employees may accrue an unlimited amount, but employers may limit the amount an employee can use to 40 hours per year. Note that even if a business is not within San Diego city limits, if an employee performs at least two hours of work per week within San Diego, they accrue paid sick leave for the hours they work within the city. This will dramatically affect delivery drivers, caterers, construction workers, or any company with a mobile workforce.  (Note that in-home supportive services, workers employed under a publicly subsidized summer or short-term youth employment program, or any student employee, camp, or program counselor of an organized camp under State law are exempted.)  The new law adds the administrative burden of tracking not only how much each employee works, but also where they work.

Los Angeles

Beginning July 1, 2016, Los Angeles employers with at least 26 employees – and, on January 1, 2017, employers with fewer than 26 employees – must comply with two new laws.

First, Los Angeles employers must provide six days (48 hours) of paid sick leave per year. Like the San Diego law, even if a business is not within city limits, if an employee performs at least two hours of work per week within the city, they accrue paid sick leave for the hours they work within the city limits. Like the state law and the San Diego law, the new Los Angeles law requires that all employees receive this sick leave (or participate in an equally generous PTO plan), including part-time and temporary employees, who must accrue this benefit at the rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked, and they must be able to access it after 90 days of employment. Also like the state law, the benefit may be front loaded or accrued and carried over to the next year.

Second, the new minimum wage will be $10.50 an hour starting July 1, 2016.

Santa Monica

Starting January 1, 2017, Santa Monica employers with more than 50 employees must provide nine days (72 hours) of paid sick leave. The application, accrual, and carryover procedures are the same as the San Diego and Los Angeles laws.

What to Do

The increasing trend toward localized employment regulation makes for a challenging compliance environment. Now more than ever, employers should consult counsel to stay abreast of these new and rapidly-changing laws.

ARTICLE BY Jennifer B. Rubin & Brent Douglas of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

California Employers: New Poster to be Posted April 1, 2016

Did you recently update your workplace posters? Time to do it again.

In California, all employers have obligations to satisfy workplace posting, such as posting information related to wages, hours and working conditions. The workplace posters must be placed in an area frequented by employees where these posters may be easily read during the workday.

As a result of new amended regulations pertaining to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) going into effect on April 1, 2016, certain covered employers must post a new poster on April 1, 2016. Employers with 5 or more employees (full-time or part-time) are covered by the FEHA and must post a specific notice, which replaces Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”) Notice A. This new poster, titled “Your Rights and Obligations as a Pregnant Employee,” provides clarifications of the PDL, including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Eligible employees are entitled up to four months of leave per pregnancy, and not per year;

  • The four months means the working days the employee would normally work in one-third of a year or 17 1/3 weeks; and

  • PDL does not need to be taken all at once, but can be taken on an as-needed basis as required by the employee’s health care provider.

For a copy of this poster, click here.

Under the California Code of Regulations, “[a]ny FEHA-covered employer whose work force at any facility or establishment is comprised of 10% or more persons whose spoken language is not English shall translate the notice into every language that is spoken by at least 10 percent of the workforce.”  The Spanish version of the foregoing notice should be available soon here.

Any time employers are required to update their posters and/or new (or amended) regulations are issued, employers should take the opportunity to ensure their workplace posters and their employee handbooks and policies are up to date and compliant.

Article By Pascal Benyamini of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

©2016 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved