19
Featured Report
• Duran v. US Bank National Association:
In a
class action lawsuit alleging that a group of
bank employees were misclassified as exempt
from overtime, the California Supreme Court
tightened the standards for class actions,
finding that to demonstrate class-wide liability,
plaintiffs must present actual proof of class-
wide misclassification, not just statistics,
and that employers have a right to present
individualized defenses.
•
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles,
LLC:
The California Supreme Court upheld
the use of class action waivers in employment
arbitration agreements.
•
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.:
The
California Supreme Court found that employees
qualify for the California “commissioned
employee” exemption in a pay period only if
they receive earnings that exceed one and
one-half times the minimum wage in that same
pay period. An employer may not satisfy the
minimum earnings prong of the exemption by
reassigning wages from a different pay period
for employees who are paid commissions
that are calculated less frequently. Employers
utilizing a system where commissions are paid
less frequently than semi-monthly should review
their policies and ensure that any employees
classified as exempt under the commissioned
employee exemption still qualify based on the
Peabody decision.
•
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC:
The Court
held that a franchisor was not responsible for
a sexual harassment charge against the
manager of one of its franchisees, based on
the fact that the franchisor did not retain the
right of control over factors such as hiring,
supervision, discipline, discharge, and day-to-
day aspects of the workplace behavior of the
franchisee’s employees.
•
Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.:
The California
Supreme Court held that an employee who
fraudulently obtained employment through
the use of another’s Social Security number
may still pursue employment discrimination
claims stemming from termination and recover
damages against the employer, including post-
termination back pay for the period when the
employee was not authorized to work and
did not actually perform work. The Court held
that federal immigration law does not preempt
this result.
•
Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance
Appeals Board:
The California Supreme Court
decided whether a single act of disobedience
by an employee constitutes misconduct under
California’s Unemployment Insurance Code,
thereby disqualifying the employee from
receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The
Court held that the employee’s refusal to sign
a disciplinary notice was not misconduct but,
at most, a good-faith error in judgment that did
not disqualify him from unemployment benefits.
Other Notable California Decisions
• Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.:
A California Court of Appeal held that when
employees must use their personal cell phones
for work purposes, California law requires
employers to reimburse them for a reasonable
percentage of the cell phone bill, regardless of
whether the cell phone plans are for limited or
unlimited minutes and regardless of whether
the employee or someone else (such as a family
member) pays the cell phone bill.
•
Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates:
A California
Court of Appeal held that a provision in an
employment application that shortened an
employee’s statute of limitations to file a claim or
lawsuit against the employer was unreasonable
and against public policy.
•
White v. County of Los Angeles:
A California
Court of Appeal held that an employer did not
violate the FMLA by requesting an employee
undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation after
it restored her to her position following the
FMLA leave, where the evaluation request was
permitted under the Americans with Disabilities
Act based on employee’s erratic behavior prior to
the FMLA leave.
NEW
CALIFORNIA
LAWS
2014 was another big year for employment-related
legislation in California. As the legislative session
wrapped up in October, Governor Brown signed a
host of employment bills, including a landmark paid
sick leave law. Here’s a rundown on some of the key
new employment-related laws that will take effect in
2015, arranged by category.
Equal Employment
Opportunity and Harassment
•
A.B. 1443 – Protections for Unpaid Interns and
Volunteers:
Amends the Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA) to prohibit harassment
of unpaid interns or volunteers based on a
protected classification. It also bars employers
from discriminating against individuals in an
unpaid internship or another limited duration
program to provide unpaid work experience for
that person. The new law also extends religious
belief and accommodation protections to unpaid
interns and volunteers.
•
A.B. 1792 – Discrimination Against Medi-Cal
Recipients:
Prohibits discrimination and retaliation
against employees participating in the Medi-Cal
program, and authorizes an annual public listing of
the top 500 employers with the most employees
enrolled in a public assistance program.
•
A.B. 2053 – Supervisor Training on Abusive
Conduct:
Expands California’s A.B. 1825
mandatory supervisor sexual harassment
training, which applies to employers with 50 or
more employees, to require training on “abusive
conduct” or bullying. Under the new law, “abusive
conduct” is defined as conduct of an employer
or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a
reasonable person would find hostile, offensive,
and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business
interests. Abusive conduct may include repeated
infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of
derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets, verbal
or physical conduct that a reasonable person
would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating,
or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a
person’s work performance. However, “a single
