Ninth Circuit: Class Action Erroneously Certified Given Wal-Mart v. Dukes

Back in 2004, employees of the Chinese Daily News started a class action, claiming mis-classification, unpaid overtime and denied meals and breaks.  The trial court eventually certified a class, and the employees won summary judgment on whether reporters for the newspaper qualified under the professional exemption.  The employees won millions of dollars after trial, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Not so fast, said the Supreme Court.  Following the Supreme Court's Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes decision (discussed here), the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case.  The Ninth Circuit decided that Wal-Mart requires reconsideration of the decision and sent it back to the district court.

Why? The trial court did not apply the proper analysis (after Wal-Mart) to determine whether there is sufficient commonality to certify the class.  As explained by the Court:

On remand, the district court must determine whether the  claims of the proposed class “depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution — which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.

So, it's not enough that there are "common questions" in the abstract, because, as the Ninth Circuit stated (quoting Wal-Mart and its own later decision in Ellis v. Costco):

"any competently crafted class complaint literally raises common questions.” Wang [sic], 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “What matters to class certification is not the raising of common questions — even in droves — but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Dissimilarities within the proposed class may “impede the generation of common answers.” Id. “If there is no evidence that the entire class was subject to the same allegedly
discriminatory practice, there is no question common to the class.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir. 2011).

The Ninth Circuit also decided that the district court would have to reconsider whether certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  That rule permits monetary recovery in class action cases when

the court finds that the questions of law or fact  common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

First, the district court over-relied on the employer's policies applicable to all employees, but without considering whether issues pertaining to individual claims and defenses would "predominate" over the common policy.  Second, the district court did not have the California Supreme Court's Brinker decision (you've heard of it, right?) to assess whether certification of a meal / rest claim was appropriate. 

Of note, the Ninth Circuit also wrote this, which will likely be of interest to class action litigators:

In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court disapproved what it called “Trial by Formula,” wherein damages are determined for a sample set of class members and then applied by extrapolation to the rest of the class “without further individualized proceedings.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2561. Employers are “entitled to individualized determinations of each employee’s eligibility” for monetary relief. Id. at 2560.
Employers are also entitled to litigate any individual affirmative defenses they may have to class members’ claims. Id. at 2561. 

The case is Wang v. Chinese Daily News and the opinion is here.

Do You Know Minimum Pay in San Jose?

"LA is a great big freeway. Put a hundr"...oh, is this on?  Oops.

San Jose's voters approved a $10.00 minimum wage, indexed to inflation beginning in 2014. (The California state minimum wage is $8.00.)  San Jose joins San Francisco as the second city to pass its own city wide minimum wage.

The new, 6-page ordinance has a bunch of additional provisions in it.  Payroll records must be kept for four years.  There is a new poster required.  Every employer must provide new employees with the employer's name and address in writing.  The anti-retaliation provision says that any adverse action taken within 90 days of an employee's protected activity related to the minimum wage is presumed to be retaliation.  Oh, and there is a penalty of $50 per employee per pay period for non-compliance.  The ordinance allows for government enforcement, and also creates a private right of action for violations as well.

The new wage is effective 90 days from when its November election is certified.  Our friends at the Cal Chamber say that the new wage will take effect in March 2013 or so.

Here is the ordinance.

Thanks for the tip, Cal Chamber. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.  If you know the owner of a small business in San Jose, you may wish to let him or her know about the new ordinance before he or she is litigated, fined, etc. out of business.

DGV

Court of Appeal: No Dress Code Class Action

Wet Seal is a retailer.   Here are various dress code policies the Company maintained for store employees:

“**Store Employees:

“The Wet Seal, Inc. store employees represent our Company and are required to dress in accordance with the current Company Dress Code guidelines. All employees are required to dress in a manner that is both respectful of our Customers and consistent with the current fashion attire that is reflected in the stores.

“The current Field Dress Code Guidelines can be found in the Store Operations Policies & Procedures Manual. Inappropriate dress will not be tolerated. Any violations of this policy may result in a disciplinary action up to and including termination. . . .”
***

“Wet Seal Employees represent Wet Seal to our Customers. Our Employees must exemplify the fashionable image we want to portray to our Customer. The Employee discount is a benefit that is offered to Employees to purchase and wear current store fashion merchandise. Employees are encouraged to wear Wet Seal merchandise at all times. It is essential that the Employees reflect Wet Seal style during working hours.*

“. . .

“*If an Employee does not have Wet Seal merchandise the Employee should wear clothing consistent with Wet Seal’s brand.”

***

“The Wet Seal and Arden B store Employees represent our Company and are required to dress in accordance with the current Company Dress Code Guidelines. All Employees are required to dress in a manner that is both respectful of our Customers and consistent with the current fashion style that is reflected in the stores. Employees are not required to wear the Company’s clothing.

“Those employees interested in purchasing company merchandise are eligible for an employee discount. . . . Employees are invited to wear Wet Seal or Arden B clothing during work hours, but are not required to do so.”

***

***“Wet Seal team members represent Wet Seal to ‘OUR GIRL.’ Our team members must exemplify the fashionable image we want to portray to ‘OUR GIRL.’ The employee discount is a benefit offered to employees to encourage them to purchase and wear current store fashion. Team members are required to dress in a manner that is both respectful of ‘OUR GIRL’ and consistent with the current fashion trends that are reflected in our stores.”


***

“As a Fashionista on the sales floor, you must represent the Arden B brand, current fashion trends and current color stories presented on the sales floor. [¶] Team members are required to dress in a manner that is both respectful to our customer, professional and consistent with the current fashion trends that are reflected in our stores.” ***

The plaintiffs claimed that the above policies constituted a "uniform," or that the company was mandating that employees buy the company's product, such that the employees should be reimbursed for dressing in the Company's clothing. 

None of this sounds like a uniform / mandatory purchase policy to me.  But what do I  know, I'm just a defense lawyer.   That said,  the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleged "they were told by their managers that the 'Company' required employees to dress in Wet Seal merchandise 'at all times.'" And, "when she was hired her manager told her that the Company required all store employees to dress in Arden B clothing and that the dress code was 'all Wet Seal clothing and accessories.'"

The trial court, though, denied class certification, in part because the above policies did not create a blanket requirement to buy the company's product, or a "uniform," i.e., clothes of a distinctive design or color, and did not mandate purchase of the company's product.

The court of appeal agreed:

First, the written policies do not state that employees were “required” to purchase Wet Seal clothing as a condition of employment. Thus, answering the “central” liability question whether Wet Seal employees were required to wear Wet Seal clothing as a condition of employment or otherwise compelled to purchase Wet Seal merchandise would require several individualized inquiries including “(1) what, if anything, the employee was told by his or her store manager regarding purchasing Wet Seal clothing or wearing Wet Seal clothing to work; (2) if such a discussion occurred, when and with whom the employee had that discussion; (3) how the employee interpreted that discussion; (4) whether the employee’s interpretation was reasonable; and (5) whether the employee then purchased Wet Seal clothing to wear to work pursuant to that discussion.”

Second, the written policies do not “explain with any specificity” what employees are required to wear, but instead use broad and vague standards like requiring employees to dress in a manner “ ‘consistent with the current fashion style that is reflected in the stores’ . . . .” Thus, for example, determining whether the attire allegedly required by Wet Seal constitutes a uniform within the meaning of Wage Order 7 would require several individualized inquiries, including “(1) what was the current fashion style reflected in each store at a given period of time; (2) whether that style was of a distinctive color or design; (3) how each store manager interpreted the phrase ‘Wet Seal style’ or ‘consistent with the current fashion style that is reflected in the stores’; (3) whether each manager required the employees to wear clothing of a distinctive design or color; and (4) whether each manager required the employees to wear clothing that is usual or generally usable in the occupation.”

Third, because the written policy does not describe what an employee is supposedly required to wear, the court found that individualized inquiries would be necessary in order to determine whether any given purchase by an employee constituted a “necessary expenditure” within the meaning of section 2802. For example, individualized inquiries would be necessary to address “(1) what, if anything, the manager told the employee regarding the required wardrobe; (2) assuming the employee purchased certain wardrobe items to wear to work, where the employee purchased those items; and (3) the particular wardrobe items actually purchased.”

The trial court also found that the evidence submitted by both sides demonstrates that the plaintiffs’ theory of liability regarding its dress code claim is not “reasonably susceptible to common proof but rather would require individualized inquiries into a myriad of circumstances depending on the particular direction of individual store managers and supervisors at numerous stores in widely varying locations and over the course of many years.” In reaching this conclusion, the court expressly found that the plaintiffs’ evidence, particularly the 55 employee declarations, demonstrate that “the common written dress code policy did not lead to common dress code practices.”

So, two things - a mushy dress code policy that suggests purchasing company clothing, but does not require it, and that does not mandate a particular color or article of clothing, will not support a uniform / mandatory purchase lawsuit on a class wide basis.  Second, local managers' local policies can still result in significant liability on an individual employee basis, even if class certification is not approved.  So, as always, the devil is in the details.

The case is Morgan v. Wet Seal and the opinion is here. 

San Francisco Minimum Wage to $10.55 effective January 1, 2013

The San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement announced that the San Francisco minimum wage will increase to $10.55 per hour, effective January 1, 2013.  The statewide minimum is $8.00 per hour.

This hourly rate, up from $10.24 in 2012, is indexed to inflation.  There will be a new minimum wage poster too, natch.  Find it, along with other information about the SF Minimum Wage Ordinance, here.

California Supreme Court De-Publishes Administrative Exemption Case

I posted about the Court of Appeal's opinion in Harris v. Superior Court here.  That decision, on remand from the California Supreme Court, would have severely limited the administrative exemption.  Fortunately, the California Supreme Court has now de-published the decision (here), so it is no longer good law.  The bad news is that the Supreme Court's guidance on the administrative exemption is rather vague and remains open to lower courts' interpretations.

Rounding Hours Worked Is OK if Done Correctly

This post is brought to you by.... See's Candies.  Mmmmm nuts and chews.And their workers still give out those free samples. 

It turns out that See's also can deliver a tasty precedent! From the Court of Appeal.

See's Candy uses a timekeeping software system, known as Kronos, to record its employee work hours. Employees are required to "punch" into the system (located in the back room of each See's Candy store) at the beginning and end of their shifts, as well as for lunch breaks. A Kronos punch shows the actual time (to the minute) when the employee punched into the system. During the relevant times, See's Candy calculated an employee's pay based on his or her Kronos punch times, subject to adjustment under two policies: (1) the nearest-tenth rounding policy; and (2) the grace period policy.

Under the nearest-tenth rounding policy, in and out punches are rounded (up or down) to the nearest tenth of an hour (every six minutes beginning with the hour mark). The Kronos time punches are thus rounded to the nearest three-minute mark. For example, if an employee clocks in at 7:58 a.m., the system rounds up the time to 8:00 a.m. If the employee clocks in at 8:02 a.m., the system rounds down the entry to 8:00 a.m.

So, those are the relevant facts. The trial court held that rounding is not allowed in California, given that California requires payment for all hours worked.  See's argued that the federal rules on rounding should apply, and that they were adopted by the California DLSE.

The Court of Appeal agreed with See's:

In the absence of controlling or conflicting California law, California courts generally look to federal regulations under the FLSA for guidance. (Huntington Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 893, 903.) The policies underlying the federal regulation — recognizing that time-rounding is a practical method for calculating work time and can be a neutral calculation tool for providing full payment to employees — apply equally to the employee-protective policies embodied in California labor law. Assuming a rounding-over-time policy is neutral, both facially and as applied, the practice is proper under California law because its net effect is to permit employers to efficiently calculate hours worked without imposing any burden on employees. (See Gillings v. Time Warner Cable, LLC, supra, 2012 WL 1656937, at *5.

* * *

Relying on the DOL rounding standard, we have concluded that the rule in California is that an employer is entitled to use the nearest-tenth rounding policy if the rounding policy is fair and neutral on its face and "it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked." (29 C.F.R. § 785.48; see DLSE Manual, supra, §§ 47.1, 47.2.)

To emphasize - the employer will be responsible for ensuring the rounding policy does not unfairly favor the employer.  Over time, "rounding" should come out about even.  If not, the court left open the possibility that the payment system will be found to be illegal.

The case is See's v. Superior Court (Silva) and the opinion is here.
 

Court of Appeal on Reporting Time (Redux)

We first blogged about Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular here.  I was pretty excited because I'm a dork. Oh, and because the Court of Appeal addressed two issues that come up all the time for clients, but never in court:  "reporting time" and the "split shift" premium. You remember.  

Anyway, as I predicted, the Supreme Court granted review and held the case, which meant it had no precedential value and pretty much disappeared.  But it's back.  And if it stays on the books this time, it may result in a big change to advice that employment lawyers give their employer clients.

Here are the facts as explained by the Court:

Krofta was required to attend occasional work-related meetings. Most of these were ―store meetings, which would be held once or twice a month on Saturday or Sunday morning, before the store opened, and which would last an hour to an hour and a half. The meetings were scheduled in advance and listed on employees‘ work schedules, and they were recorded in AirTouch‘s electronic timekeeping system.

Krofta‘s timesheets from AirTouch showed that there were five occasions on which he was scheduled to work, and did work, less than four hours (possibly to attend meetings). Separately, the AirTouch timesheets showed there were five times when Krofta worked a split shift—described by the parties for purposes of this litigation as a short shift (generally a meeting) in the morning followed by a longer shift later the same day.

*** Krofta contended, however, that he was owed additional compensation as reporting time pay for the five instances he worked less than four hours, and split shift premiums for the five times he worked a split shift.

REPORTING TIME PAY

Here's how the court analyzed the reporting time pay provision contained in the Wage Orders.  This will result in a big change to advice employment lawyers give to employers:

To simplify, the issue may be framed by the following question: If an employee‘s only scheduled work for the day is a mandatory meeting of one and a half hours, and the employee works a total of one hour because the meeting ends a half hour early, is the employer required to pay reporting time pay pursuant to subdivision 5(A) of Wage Order 4 in addition to the one hour of wages? The answer to this question is no, because the employee was furnished work for more than half the scheduled time. The employee would be entitled to receive one hour of wages for the actual time worked, but would not be entitled to receive additional compensation as reporting time pay. . . . [W]hen an employee is scheduled to work, the minimum two-hour pay requirement applies only if the employee is furnished work for less than half the scheduled time

SPLIT SHIFTS

The court's treatment of split shift pay clarified ambiguity in the law regarding whether split shift premiums are due for workers who make a certain amount more than minimum wage:

Krofta contends that he was owed additional compensation for working split shifts under subdivision 4(C) of Wage Order 4. Subdivision 4(C) is located under the section \4. Minimum Wages. heading of the wage order. It states: \When an employee works a split shift, one (1) houres pay at the minimum wage shall be paid in addition to the minimum wage for that workday, except when the employee resides at the place of employment.. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, ˜ 11040, subd. 4(C).) * * *

*** While subdivision 4(C) applied to Krofta, the provision did not provide him with any tangible benefit, since the total amount of his regular pay was significantly higher than the minimum amount required by subdivision 4(C).

No published California case has previously addressed this direct issue. However, although obviously not binding, a well-respected treatise (Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2011)) has embraced the same interpretation of subdivision 4(C). The Rutter guide explains the provision thusly: ―[A]n employee earning the minimum wage who works eight hours on a split shift is entitled to receive nine times the minimum hourly wage.‖ (Id. at ¶ 11:682, p. 11-68.) ―This provision also applies to employees paid more than the minimum wage. However, such employees are only entitled to the difference between what they actually earned and what they would have earned had they been paid the minimum wage for their entire shift plus an extra hour.‖ (Id. at ¶ 11:683, p. 11-69.) ***

So, this means that an employee is not required to earn a split shift premium of one hour at minimum wage, unless he or she earns < (minimum wage * hours worked + (minimum wage * 1 hour)).

OTHER ISSUES

If the above weren't enough, this case keeps on giving. The Court held that a release of claims will lawfully include disputed claims for unpaid wages, despite Labor Code Section 206.5, a California statute prohibiting releases of wage claims.

The Court also clarified that on the reporting time claim, either party may seek attorney's fees under Section 218.5, which means that the employer won its fees against the plaintiffs.

So, happy Friday!  Monday won't be so bad either.

The case is Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Advanced Commissions May Be Recovered

Verizon paid certain employees on commission. The commissions were paid on wireless subscriptions.  However, if customers canceled their service, Verizon would charge back the commissions that were advanced to employees under the assumption that the customer would pay for the entire subscription. Here is the court of appeal's description of the commission plan:

The compensation plans explain that commissions on the sale of cell phone service plans are paid in advance, but not earned until the expiration of a chargeback period during which the customer may cancel the service. The 2004 compensation plan stated: "Customer retention is an important element of earning any commission; therefore your commission for sales of service is not earned until after the expiration of the applicable chargeback period. However, as a benefit to employees so that they will have use of the money before it is actually earned, Verizon Wireless has a policy of advancing commission dollars, if certain requirements are met, for the sale of commission-eligible services." The 2005 compensation plan stated: "Your commission . . . is not earned and the sale does not „vest‟ until . . . your customer satisfies his [or her] contract during the applicable chargeback period."

The compensation plans include a section entitled, "Chargeback of Commission Advance." The 2004 compensation plan stated: "In the event a customer disconnects service during the commission chargeback period, your commission is subject to adjustment by the original amount advanced for the sale. Your commission advance will be adjusted to account for disconnects within the chargeback period . . . ." The 2005 compensation plan stated if a customer disconnects service during the chargeback period, "the sale is not considered vested[.]"

Deleon, a Verizon employee, brought a class action agianst Verizon, challening Verizon's right to recover advanced commissions. Deleon's point apparently is that he sold the plan to the customer. If the customer makes a return or cancels, Verizon must pay him the commission anyway and absorb the loss.  That's why there's little chance there will be a company called "Deleon Wireless" any time soon.

There is no allegation that Verizon failed to honor its plan, or that Deleon was underpaid. The entire focus was that he should be paid more, on sales that did not bear fruit.

Nice try. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeal affirmed. The courts decided that Verizon's plan was clear, Deleon had notice of it, and Verizon followed the plan correctly. The plan defined when commissions were "earned" and paid money in advance, but reconciled the advances against future earned commissions. Therefore, the courts held, Verizon's plan was lawful.

The court of appeal also made a refreshing observation.  If the plaintiff's argument prevailed, Verizon most likely would have dispensed with making advances. Employees would then have to wait up to a year to "earn" commissions when the subscriptions were fully paid. 

The case is Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court: Pharmaceutical Sales Reps are FLSA Exempt

The Supreme Court resolved a split between circuit courts and held that pharmaceutical sales representatives engage in "sales" and therefore are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under the FLSA and California law (and other states' laws), "outside salespersons" are exempt from minimum wage and over time law.

The issue for the Supreme Court was that pharmaceutical reps do not really "sell" drugs to doctors. They "sell" to the doctor that the doctor should promise to prescribe the pharma company's medicine.  Plaintiffs argued that because the rep makes no "sale" he or she should not be considered a salesperson.  Rather, they are non-exempt "promoters."

The Department of Labor took the position that Pharmaceutical reps were non-exempt beginning in 2009.  But the DOL's reasoning apparently evolved as to "why."  According to the Court, the Agency argued:

“[a]n employee does not make a ‘sale’ for purposes of the ‘outside salesman’ exemption unless he actually transfers title to the property at issue.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 1213 (hereinafter U. S. Brief).13 .

That would seem to remove from the exempt a whole lot of sales persons who previously were exempt, and it was much narrower than regulations and prior case law.  So, the Court refused to defer to the DOL interpretation.

The decision was 5-4.  The dissent agreed that the government's own interpretation was not worth much.  But the dissent's opinion was that the duties performed do not amount to "sales" but rather were promotion activities and non-exempt.

This decision may not directly affect California's outside sales exemption. But it should, because California law does not go into any level of detail regarding what is an "outside salesman."  Therefore, the courts and agencies may will follow the Supreme Court's opinion regarding what counts as a sale.

The case is Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham and the opinion is here.

The California Labor Commissioner Updates Its Wage Theft Forms

Effective 4/12/12, the DLSE updated its templates and FAQs to help employers comply with the Wage Theft Prevention Act.  You can find the page of forms here.   I guess they couldn't wait until the Brinker hoopla died down a little?

There are clarifications such as related to who is responsible for the notice when an employer hires a temp from a staffing agency (the agency), etc.  Fortunately, the DLSE also says that employers don't have to distribute new notices every time the DLSE issues an update.  Whew!

DGV

Random Post-Brinker Thoughts

I have taken more time to read Brinker.  Here are some thoughts to add on to yesterday's post.

1.  The Supreme Court tried to clarify when class actions should be certified.  The trial court will have a  lot of latitude to decide certification, as it has been since 2004's Sav-on decision.  But this opinion will give trial courts more encouragement to certify class actions. The Court limited the trial court's examinations of whether a case has legal merit at the class action stage to resolving a legal issue that affects common issues so much that class certification would be improper. The trial courts will still wrestle with this issue and class action practice is likely safe under this analysis.  As explained below, the Court's application of class action rules means that class actions based on common policies (such as rest periods) may be authorized more freely than courts have been allowing up to now.

1.5 The summary judgment motion will be a very important part of class action defense and should be considered early in the process to avoid class certification of claims that are based on a common policy, but have no merit.

2.  Rest period law:  The Court precisely explained to employers the rest period rules.  Policies must be drafted in accordance with this formula:  "the rest time that must be permitted as the number of hours worked divided by four, rounded down if the fractional part is half or less than half and up if it is more (a “major fraction”), times 10 minutes."

You don't like math?  Well they explain it even better here, because they incorporate the fact that employees with shifts of fewer than 3.5 hours in length are not entitled to any rest period: "Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.... an employee would receive no rest break time for shifts of two hours or less, 10 minutes for shifts lasting more than two hours up to six hours, 20 minutes for shifts lasting more than six hours up to 10 hours, and so on." 

Caveat re scheduling:  although the court added up the rest-period minutes above, the law requires paid, 10-minute rest periods during each four hour work period.  So, the employer should draft its policies such that the rest periods fall somewhere in the middle of each four-hour work period.  Here is the rule regarding timing:

Employers are thus subject to a duty to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but may deviate from that preferred course where practical considerations render it infeasible. ....

in the context of an eight-hour shift, “[a]s a general matter,” one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break. (Ibid.)

3. The Court then held that the trial court properly certified a rest-period class because Brinker's rest-period policy was uniformly applied and was vague enough to permit the argument that it violated the law because it did not specifically authorize rest periods when employees work "major fractions" of four-hour periods.  Here is the policy:

Under the written policy, employees receive one 10-minute rest break per four hours worked: “If I work over 3.5 hours during my shift, I understand that I am eligible for one ten minute rest break for each four hours that I work.”

As you can see, this policy permits the argument that employees who worked 6.5 hours were not given a second rest period, even under the policy.  So, the Court's holding re class certification re-opens the door for rest period class actions. Therefore, employers must have a more detailed rest-period policy that spells out rest periods are authorized and permitted in accordance with the formula above, or a class action lawyer can argue that the vague, common policy is applied contrary to law.  Additionally, management must be educated to enforce rest period policies in accordance with their terms when they schedule. Make with the drafting!

4.  Meal periods.   I pulled the quotes in my post yesterday.  Here are some more thoughts.
- Meal period policies should emphasize they are "duty free," meaning the employee can come and go and leave the premises as desired.

the wage order’s meal period requirement is satisfied if the employee (1) has at least 30 minutes uninterrupted, (2) is free to leave the premises, and (3) is relieved of all duty for the entire period.

Under the class action rule the Court developed, a vague policy is subject to an argument that the common policy violates the law.  So, policies should be explicit.

- Employers will be liable for regular straight time or overtime pay when the know or should have known that employees work through meal periods.  That's normal, because you have to pay employees when you "suffer or permit" them to work.  So, if employees don't punch out for meals, you cannot "auto-deduct" meal period time. As we have said before, the remedy for employees who do not comply with policies is discipline, not docking pay.

- Managers who prevent employees from taking meal periods per policy (such as discouraging meal periods) may expose the company to liability for meal period premiums.  When there is a "corporate culture" of discouraging the meal period, look for class actions based on a "common de facto policy."

- The legally compliant policy must provide that a meal period must start before the sixth hour of work begins.  That means, an employee who starts at 9 must be given a meal break by 2 pm.  Again, employers do not have to police the requirement, but the policy should be explicit to avoid the argument that the policy allows for illegal lunches.

- The legally compliant policy also should provide for a second meal period that starts before the eleventh hour of work begins.  There is a waiver of the second meal period allowed upon certain conditions, and that can be included as well.

- Caveat:  Know your business's wage order!  I am going over the general rules here (Wage Order 4, 5, 7 - the biggies).  There are different meal period provisions in some of the lesser used wage orders, such as Wage Order 12, applicable in the film industry. That Wage Order requires meals at six-hour intervals, not before the sixth hour and before the eleventh hour.

5.  Off the clock.  The Supreme Court decided that no "off the clock" work class would be allowed because (1) Brinker had an express and specific policy prohibiting off the clock work and (2) the only evidence in support of class certification was anecdotes about specific instances.  The Court noted the absence of a "de facto" policy requiring workers to work off the clock.  So, it pays to have a policy barring off the clock work.  We also like sign offs on time cards / time sheets certifying that employees reported all time worked, and verifying they know not to work off the clock.

Well, that's it for now.  I'm sure we'll have more down the road.  I hope this has been helpful.

Greg

Brinker: Employers Need Not Force Meal Periods

I will digest the Court's unanimous Brinker opinion a bit later. Those of you waiting to read it, it is here.

There is a long discussion of class certification in wage hour cases, which I will analyze later.  But
here are the money quotes on rest periods / meal periods.  At first read, this is total victory for the employer's position:

Rest periods:

Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.* * * 

Hohnbaum asserts employers have a legal duty to permit their employees a rest period before any meal period. Construing the plain language of the operative wage order, we find no such requirement and agree with the Court of Appeal, which likewise rejected this contention.

* * *

in the context of an eight-hour shift, “[a]s a general matter,” one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break. (Ibid.) Shorter or longer shifts and other factors that render such scheduling impracticable may alter this general rule.

Meal Periods:

Hohnbaum contends that an employer has one additional obligation: to ensure that employees do no work during meal periods. . . . We are not persuaded. The difficulty with the view that an employer must ensure no work is done—i.e., prohibit work—is that it lacks any textual basis in the wage order or statute.

* * *

If work does continue, the employer will not be liable for premium pay. At most, it will be liable for straight pay, and then only when it “knew or reasonably should have known that the worker was working through the authorized meal period.”

Proof an employer had knowledge of employees working through meal periods will not alone subject the employer to liability for premium pay; employees cannot manipulate the flexibility granted them by employers to use their breaks as they see fit to generate such liability. On the other hand, an employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.

* * *

To summarize: An employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks under both section 512, subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5 is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so. What will suffice may vary from industry to industry, and we cannot in the context of this class certification proceeding delineate the full range of approaches that in each instance might be sufficient to satisfy the law.

On the other hand, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not thereby place the employer in violation of its obligations and create liability for premium pay under Wage Order No. 5, subdivision 11(B) and Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b).

And finally - no "rolling 5 hour" meal periods.

We conclude that, absent waiver, section 512 requires a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work. We conclude further that, contrary to Hohnbaum’s argument, Wage Order No. 5 does not impose additional timing requirements.

   

Brinker Meal Period Opinion To Be Released Thursday 4/12

I think we're finally going to find out what the law is on meal periods in California.  But I have no idea if employers are going to like it or not.  

Here's the Supreme Court's announcement.
BRINKER RESTAURANT v. S.C. (HOHNBAUM)
Case: S166350, Supreme Court of California
Event Description:   Notice of forthcoming opinion posted
To be filed on Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 10 a.m.

Our announcement is that Shaw Valenza will be conducting a webinar on Brinker on April 25.  Find out about it here.

DLSE revises FAQs on Wage Theft Notice...

I posted about the Division of Labor Standards' Enforcement's template Notice here and about the FAQs here.  The DLSE apparently has thought better of its requirement that even current employees receive a notice (because that plainly was not in the statute).  So, the agency revised its FAQ's, here.  Slightly concerned employers I spoke with ... please take note.

DGV

Court of Appeal Finds "At Will" Insurance Agent Was Independent Contractor

Happy New Year!

Kimbly Arnold was an agent working for Mutual of Omaha.  She was non-exclusive, and sold other lines as well.  She was "at will" but was paid solely on commissions, had no office space unless she paid for it, had no supervisor or other personnel "managing her."  Her only job requirement was to submit at least one application for insurance every six months. 
Arnold took a job with another company requiring an exclusive relationship. She then brought a class action alleging failure to reimburse expenses under Labor Code Section 2802, and failure to pay wages at the time of termination.  Both of these claims require an "employment" relationship. 
Agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that Arnold was an independent contractor, based in part on this evidence:

Mutual managers make themselves available to assist agents, as distinguished from supervising them. Training is generally not mandatory and is offered chiefly for the guidance of "new" agents. Training is required only with respect to compliance with state law directives. Managers provide assistance with sales or clients when an agent "wants them to assist." Software is provided by Mutual as a "best practice[e]" to enable agents to sell its products more successfully. Conference rooms, if available, are provided as a courtesy to agents seeking to set up a meeting and have no other space in the office. Mutual policy does not otherwise reimburse agents for regular business expenses, such as entertaining a client, although it does provide certain "prospecting" credits, beginning when an agent is newly appointed, by which the agent might apply for reimbursement for mailings, newsletters, and similar expenses to generate new business for Mutual products. The credits must be used and have no separate compensatory value. While Mutual pays its agents in two-week periods, payments are comprised of commissions and bonuses established by policy, and there is no guaranteed compensation; advances may be authorized only by a general manager in the event an agent has submitted an application for which a policy is likely to be issued. Advances are rare, due to the policy to pay commissions only on business actually issued, as opposed to routine advances for the purpose of regularizing payment amounts. . . ..

Arnold used her own judgment in determining whom she would solicit for applications for Mutual‟s products, the time, place, and manner in which she would solicit, and the amount of time she spent soliciting for Mutual‟s products. Her appointment with Mutual was nonexclusive, and she in fact solicited for other insurance companies during her appointment with Mutual. Her assistant general manager at Mutual‟s Concord office did not evaluate her performance and did not monitor or supervise her work. Training offered by Mutual was voluntary for agents, except as required for compliance with state law. Agents who chose to use the Concord office were required to pay a fee for their workspace and telephone service. Arnold‟s minimal performance requirement to avoid automatic termination of her appointment was to submit one application for Mutual‟s products within each 180-day period. Thus, under the principal test for employment under common law principles, Mutual had no significant right to control the manner and means by which Arnold accomplished the results of the services she performed as one of Mutual‟s soliciting agents.
The additional factors of the common law test also weigh in favor of finding an independent contractor relationship. Although Mutual could terminate the appointment at will, a termination at-will clause for both parties may properly be included in an independent contractor agreement, and is not by itself a basis for changing that relationship to one of an employee.
Notably, Arnold was engaged in a distinct occupation requiring a license from the Department of Insurance, and was responsible for her own instrumentalities or tools with the exception of limited resources offered by Mutual to enhance their agents‟ successful solicitation of Mutual‟s products. Arnold was required to pay a fee for the use of Mutual‟s office space and telephone service. Although Mutual paid its agents in a systematic way every two weeks, Arnold‟s payment itself—chiefly commissions—was based on her results and not the amount of time she spent working on Mutual‟s behalf. Finally, both Arnold and Mutual believed, at the time of her appointment, they were creating an independent contractor relationship and not an employee relationship.

Thus, the court went through the typical analysis of an independent contractor relationship under California's "common law" test and came up with little evidence of an employer-employee relationship.  The court rejected Arnold's attempt to define employee more broadly by using a Labor Code Section that contains no definition of employee... (Lab. Code 2750).

Anyway, the case is Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. and the opinion is here.

Wage Theft Protection Act - FAQs from the DLSE

Here are some FAQs regarding the new notices that must be provided to employees "at the time of hire."
Some thoughts:

1. The DLSE apparently takes the position that the notice must be provided to existing employees, although that requirement is not contained in the statute.  
2.  Remember that changes to any of the items in the notice have to be communicated, either by a proper wage statement or a new notice.
3.  It is not mandatory to use DLSE's template form.  Employers may create their own. However, all the information on the DLSE's form (even the information not specified in the statute, must be listed on a separate form, rather than incorporated into a larger contract, offer letter, or handbook).
4.  If the notice is given electronically, the DLSE requires some method of obtaining an acknowledgement from the employee.
5.  The DLSE's notice requires specification of whether there is an oral or written employment agreement.  Every employee is employed pursuant to an "agreement," even if the employee is "at will."  (An agreement is as simple as "I will pay you if you work today."  It also could include a written offer letter or a formal employment contract).   So, employers should specify whether the employment contract is oral or written without fear that this provision somehow compromises at-will employment.
6.  The penalty for non compliance is not specified in the law and, therefore, will likely be the "PAGA" penalties of $100 per employee per pay period for the initial violation and $200 per pay period per employee for subsequent violations.  So, it is wise to comply with this law.

Happy New Year anyway!

DGV

California Supreme Court Clarifies Administrative Exemption

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision rejecting the lower court's interpretation of the "administrative exemption."

Frances Harris and other claims adjusters sued Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., claiming that claims adjusters were mis-classified as exempt.  The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that claims adjusters are part of an insurance company's "production" and therefore cannot be performing "administrative" functions.  The Court of Appeal also included some disturbing language in its opinion regarding how "important" the administrative work must be, and that only work at a high level would count towards the exemption.

The Supreme Court disagreed.  However, the Court limited its holding to setting out the proper standards for determining whether someone is performing "administrative" work.   It did not rule one way or the other regarding whether the claims adjusters were exempt.

The Supreme Court summarized as follows:

Federal Regulations former part 541.205(a), (b), and (c) must be read together in order to apply the ―directly related‖ test and properly determine whether the work at issue satisfies the administrative exemption. For example, former part 541.205(b) supplied a general description of the types of duties that constitute ―administrative operations of the business. It included work performed by ―white-collar employees engaged in ̳servicing‘ a business as, for example, advising the management, planning, negotiating, [and] representing the company. The dissent below argued, ―That is what claims adjusters do—they negotiate settlements (and conclude some without seeking approval), advise management, and process claims.‖ The incorporation of former part 541.205(b) shows that whether work is part of the ―administrative operations‖ of a business depends, in part, on whether it involves advising management, planning, negotiating, and representing the company. It is not so narrowly limited as the majority below declared. 

In addition to the above regulations, the Supreme Court referred the Court of Appeal to the Wage Order definition of the administrative exemption.

Thus, the "duties test" for the administrative exemption is analyzed using former 29 CFR 541.205 (now 541.201-203) in its entirety. [Because these regulations have been amended, it will be important to find the 2001 version of the federal rules. ]

It remains to be seen how the courts interpret the Supreme Court's guidance. But if the Court of Appeal's test had been affirmed, it would have severely curtailed the exemption.  We at least know that the Supreme Court disagreed with that approach.

The opinion is Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.) and the opinion is here.

More on AB 469 Notice "Template"

Per my previous post, the DLSE issued its "template" for compliant AB 469 disclosures.  See the post re DLSE template here.


An impolitic or imprudent employment lawyer might say that the DLSE's waiting until December 29 to issue a template implementing AB 469 disclosures (to begin on 1/1/12) was arrogant, unconscionable, and all but a gift to plaintiff lawyers. But I've never been one of those rash people.  :::whistling::::

What makes this all more galling is that the DLSE has imposed requirements over and above what the statute actually provides for.  DLSE had the right to expand on the law's requirements becuase the statute says that the required disclosure must include "any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary."

That's all fine, but how about more than 2 work days' notice of what you think is necessary?  Not to mention that 90% of management is on vacation.  Employers likely planned the new notices would include only the items expressly identified in the law, given DLSE's failure to promptly issue its template.  Now they have to re-tool, which may be easier to do in a mom & pop store, but not so easy when there are multiple outlets and hundreds of new hires to process.

Perhaps the DLSE didn't care because the notice provision does not apply to...the DLSE (!) or other government employers.  Go figure.

Oh well, enough whining.  The DLSE model includes a couple of itsems not specified in the actual statute:  1) the name and address of a PEO or other third party that administers the hiring process (but not a payroll processor or recruiting agency) 2) whether the employment agreement is oral or written... there may be more. I just got the thing today and all...

DGV

California DLSE Issues Template AB 469 Notice... IMPORTANT

AB 469 requires employers to give new hires, at the time of hire, a notice containing certain information listed in the law. The statute also requires the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to issue a model notice.  The DLSE finally did so, and it is here.
Happy New Year!

U.S. Dept of Labor to Cut Overtime Exemption for Home Caregiver Agencies

The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from minimum wage and overtime law:

domestic service employees employed ``to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as 
such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the 
Secretary). 

Section 13(b)(21) exempts any employee employed "in domestic service in a household

and who resides in such household."

Under current regulations, an employer such as an agency can employ these caregivers and live-ins and treat them as exempt under the FLSA.  That is, qualifying employees would be paid a certain amount of money to perform the duties without tracking their time or receiving overtime premiums.  Presumably, the agencies markup this rate to add overhead and profit and then charge the patient a fixed amount of money for the service.

The U.S. DOL has issued a proposed regulation (here)  that would prohibit home care agencies from treating caregivers as exempt.  However, individual caregivers not employed by an agency or its individual employer (the patient or patient's family) still may assert the exemption.  (Note - After a humongous analysis and notice of proposed rule making, the proposed regulations are all the way at the very end of the link).  Here is the section that applies to third party agencies:

Sec.  552.109  Third Party Employment.

    (a) Third party employers of employees engaged in companionship services within the meaning of Sec.  552.6 may not avail themselves of the minimum wage and overtimeexemption provided by section 13(a)(15) of the Act, even if the employee is jointly employed by the individual or member of the family or household using the services. However, the individual or member of the family or household, even if considered a 
joint employer, is still entitled to assert the exemption, if the employee meets all of the requirements of Sec.  552.6.
    (b) * * *
    (c) Third party employers of household workers engaged in live-in domestic services within the meaning of Sec.  552.102 may not avail themselves of the overtime exemption provided by section 13(b)(21) of the Act, even if the employee is jointly employed by the individual or member of the family or household using the services. However, the individual or member of the family or household, even if considered a 
joint employer, is still entitled to assert the exemption.

This is one cryptic draft regulation. Even if the individual's family is a joint employer with whom?? The public can comment until Feb. 27, 2012.  Maybe they'll clear it up.

The proposed regulation also revises the definition of "companionship services" and "live-in domestic services.  To see those, click the link above and scroll way down to the draft regulation at 552.6.  Employees who do not pass the duties tests in these regulations also must be treated as non-exempt - by individual employers and agencies alike.

California employers will be affected by this, because the federal rule will apply even if California would extend the exemption to home agencies.  If federal law says no exemption, that controls.   Also, this change would not affect most employers. But it sure will affect people who count on home care agencies to deliver services.  Who is going to pay for the overtime and other obligations (like record keeping) that the lost exemption will cause?   

DGV