Articles Posted in Employment

|

As a business litigation attorney in San Jose, I am always concerned when clients are confronted with murky or unclear regulations. For many years, employers have been awaiting clarity on California’s confusing meal and rest break laws. There has been uncertainty as to whether employers must force their non-exempt employees to take their meal breaks, or whether the employer meets its obligations by simply providing employees the opportunity to take their breaks. The California Supreme Court very recently provided much needed clarification on this important employment law issue in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County.

The Court also addressed the proper method to calculate the timing of both meal and rest breaks, putting an end to the guessing game of how many breaks must be provided, and when the breaks must be given.

Employers Do Not Need To Police Employees During Meal Breaks

The Court decided that employers, while under a legal duty to provide meal breaks at appropriate intervals, are not obligated to ensure that employees do no work while on their breaks. The employer’s obligation is simply to relieve its employees of their work duties, relinquish control over the employee’s activities, and permit the employee a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break. Of course, the employer must not impede or discourage the employee from taking the provided break.

Also of great importance was that the Court stated quite clearly that employers are not required to police meal breaks to ensure that no work is performed during the break. In fact, employees are free to work during their meal break, if they decide to do so.

Timing of Meal Breaks

The Court also provided clear guidance on the timing of meal breaks. The first meal break must be provided no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work. A second meal period must be provided no later than an employee’s 10th hour of work. Meal periods can be scheduled prior to the end of the fifth hour of work, including in the first hour of work, and can occur before the first rest break.

Timing of Rest Breaks

The case also clarified when employees are entitled to rest breaks. Employees must be given one 10-minute rest break for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, two 10-minute rest breaks for shifts of more than six and up to 10 hours in length, and three 10-minute rest breaks for shifts more than 10 hours and up to 14 hours in length. Employees who work less than three and one-half hours are not entitled to a rest break. The Court also stated that there is no requirement for an employer to give a rest break before a meal break.

Overall, the business community and employer-side employment attorneys view the Brinker case as a common sense legal opinion that offers clear guidelines for handling employee meal and rest breaks. Furthermore, the case may have the effect of curtailing potential class-action lawsuits against California businesses that, prior to the Court’s ruling, could have been accused of meal and rest break violations.

Continue reading ›

|

As a business litigation lawyer in Silicon Valley, I have seen quite a few employee-related issues come up for businesses in San Jose and Santa Clara. For the purpose of this blog, I have combined issues of several clients into one hypothetical owner of a small Internet company. The owner discovered that one of her employees had started a competing online business and was attempting to staff the new business with her current employees. The owner was justifiably concerned as to whether her employee’s acts were illegal, and whether she, as employer, had any recourse. This blog summarizes some of the litigation issues businesses face when employees take actions that violate California’s unfair competition laws. Click here to read my previous blog on unfair competition by competitors.

The owner’s biggest problem was the fact that her employees were being solicited to work elsewhere. Like many small business owners, this owner had worked hard to create a business staffed by well-trained employees who provided customers with excellent goods and services. The deliberate effort by the company’s existing employee to pick up her other employees caused the owner undue stress and frustration.

The soliciting employee in this case was clearly in the wrong. Under California law, while working for a company, an employee cannot solicit fellow employees to leave that company and work for a competitor. To do so is a breach of a confidential relationship, a breach of an implied obligation, and possibly even a breach of fiduciary duty, depending on the soliciting employee’s position. Where the employee is a fiduciary, liability for unfair competition may also extend to the hiring competitor if it knows of the employee’s actions and benefits from them.

While the owner provided a top-notch online service with an established and growing customer base, she was also concerned about her employee’s competing web site. California law permits an employee to make some preparations to establish a competing business while employed. However, the employer may have good cause to terminate the employee if the acts by that employee to establish the business are such that the employee cannot give his or her undivided loyalty to the employer. Once an employee ceases work, the employee may go into direct competition with his now-former employer.

It is also important to note that employers may also sue former employees who misappropriate their ex-employer’s proprietary information or trade secrets. For example, businesses expend a great amount of time, effort, and money in developing customer lists. Such lists are often the most valuable asset a company a may have, and can qualify as both proprietary information and a protected trade secret. Under California law, an employee may not take an employer’s protected customer address list and then begin directly soliciting the customers.

However, to qualify as protected information, the customer list should contain specific information not generally known to the public or competitors. This information might include names of contact personnel, history of previous dealings with the customer, price quotes provided to the customer, and other particular information. A company should also maintain its customer list in a confidential manner. The more rigorous a business attempts to maintain the secrecy of its customer list, e.g. informing employees of the confidential nature of the information, protecting the information with passwords, including notices that the information is proprietary, and other steps, the more likely the court will be to find that the customer list qualifies as proprietary information or a trade secret. A non-solicitation clause in an employment contract, restricting the employee from soliciting the employer’s customers for a certain period of time after leaving, may bolster an employer’s argument that the employee cannot lawfully use the customer list.

Trade secrets, of course, are not limited to customer lists, and include a wide variety of formats, such as business plans, bid specifications, software code, and other documents and information. Such documents and information should be proactively protected by businesses, in case an instance occurs where litigation arises due to an employee’s misappropriation of trade secrets, or other acts of unfair competition.

Continue reading ›

|

As a corporate and business lawyer in San Jose, I have been busy speaking with Silicon Valley business owners about a recent California law affecting companies that have misclassified employees as independent contractors. When the 2008 economic crisis hit, large high tech companies and small start-ups in San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, among other cities, adapted by hiring workers as independent contractors to avoid paying payroll taxes and offering benefits to the new hires. Unfortunately, some companies may have inadvertently misclassified employees as independent contractors.

There has been a lot of publicity around the new IRS program allowing businesses to voluntarily correct the misclassification and pay only a low penalty. However, there has not been quite as much news about the recent California law (Senate Bill 459 signed into law by Governor Brown in October, 2011) which makes the willful misclassification of employees and independent contractors illegal and subject to severe penalties. Under the California law, the Labor Commissioner can impose penalties not just on the employer, but also on the employer’s accountant or other paid advisor (other than employees or attorneys). These penalties range from $5,000 to $15,000 for each misclassified person, or $10,000 to $25,000 per violation if there is a “pattern and practice” of violations. There are still more penalties for employers that charge their misclassified employees a deduction against wages for any purpose (including space rent, goods, materials, services, equipment maintenance, etc.), which is considered as another attempt to wrongfully treat them as independent contractors.

What does “Willful Misclassification” Mean?

The definition of willful misclassification in the law is: “avoiding employee status for an individual by voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying that individual as an independent contractor.” (California Labor Code Section 226.8 (i)(4).)

Contractors Beware

The labor agency is required to notify the Contractors State License Board if a contractor is determined to have willfully misclassified workers, and the new law requires the Contractors State License Board to initiate discipline against the contractor.

Everyone Beware

The new law also provides for public embarrassment by requiring employers who have willfully misclassified employees and independent contractors to prominently display a notice on their website (or if they do not have a website, then in an area accessible to all employees and the general public) saying that they have committed a serious violation of the law by willfully misclassifying employees, that they have changed their business practices so as not to do it again, that any employee who thinks they may be misclassified may contact the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (with contact information), and that the notice is being posted by state order.

It is not just the employer that needs to worry about misclassification. If you provide paid advice to an employer, knowingly advising the company to treat a worker as an independent contractor to avoid employee status, you can be held jointly and severally liable for the misclassification. This rule does not apply to business lawyers like myself, because attorneys providing legal advice are exempt from this liability, as are people who work for the company and provide advice to the employer.

Continue reading ›

|

Has your business been misclassifying workers as independent contractors? If so, you should pay special attention to a recent IRS announcement of its new program giving a break to employers who voluntarily correct such misclassifications. With Silicon Valley being a technology hub, there are thousands of computer programmers and engineers working as independent contractors in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View. High-tech companies and start-ups that employ these individuals should carefully review their HR files to see if they have misclassified any employee. If a company discovers that it has wrongly classified an employee, it should then evaluate the IRS program to determine if the company should participate in the program.

In an earlier blog, I wrote about the importance of companies classifying their workers correctly in order to avoid substantial penalties and taxes. If your company may have misclassified workers, the new IRS program will let you voluntarily correct your errors and just pay a low penalty equal to 1.068% of compensation paid to those workers last year. IRS Announcement 2011-64 provides the details. To qualify for the IRS program, your company must not be under audit, and must have consistently treated the workers as contractors for the past three years. No reasonable basis for the previous misclassification is necessary. Going forward, you must treat the workers correctly as employees. The minimal penalty may be a good idea if you consider that the Labor Department and the IRS are beginning to share leads on misclassified workers. [Kiplinger Tax Letter September 30, 2011, Vol. 86, No. 20.]

However, there are some potential downsides in addition to having to pay the penalty. So, think twice before you come clean with the IRS. First, you will lose IRS Safe Harbor protection on those workers and they will always be treated as employees going forward. Second, as part of the deal, the IRS requires you to agree to extend the statute of limitations for an extra three years, meaning you can be audited for employment taxes and misclassifications for six years. Third, the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) is not participating in the program, so it is not bound by the rules and will likely assess your identified workers for the full three year statutory period. And the EDD is likely to find out about your deal with the IRS because of their agreement with the IRS to share information, and because they will see your employer credit for paying unemployment taxes and it will not reconcile with your quarterly wage reporting, triggering an audit. [Spidell California Taxletter, vol. 33.11, November 1, 2011, pages 124-125.] California has some new misclassification penalties which are significant.

If you still feel that participating in the IRS program is a good idea and will help you sleep better at night because you have been misclassifying workers, think carefully about which workers do and do not need to be reported and re-classified. It may be that only some of your workers are misclassified, but once you claim them as employees under the new IRS program, you are stuck with that classification.

Continue reading ›

|

With the new year comes new laws, and businesses in the San Jose area should be aware of the new California employment laws that are on the books in 2012. Ensuring compliance with these new laws is good for the bottom-line, as it will make for happy employees, who will in turn make for satisfied customers. Making sure that your business complies with the new laws put on the books each January 1st may help your company avoid employment-related litigation.
Hiring Practices
Starting in 2012, employers may no longer obtain consumer credit reports about employees and job applicants. There are exceptions to this law, particularly for positions requiring access to bank or credit card information and other personal information, positions that include access to $10,000 or more during the daily course of business, positions involving signatory authority, and management positions.
Also, at the time of hire, employers must now provide notice to new nonexempt employees of the following information: pay rate; overtime rate; form of pay (hourly, salary, commission, other); a list of allowances that are included as part of the minimum wage; name, principal address, and telephone number of the employer; and the regular pay day designated by the employer. The employer must provide written notice to employees within seven days of any changes to this information.
Finally, the penalty for willfully misclassifying employees as independent contractors is now between $5,000 and $25,000. This five-fold penalty increase underscores the importance of properly classifying new hires.
Employee Leave
All employers with five or more employees must maintain and pay for a group health plan for any eligible female employee who takes Pregnancy Disability Leave for up to a maximum of four months during a 12 month time period. These benefits must remain at the same level as though the employee had been working during the leave. These requirements extend beyond those of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
The law regarding organ and bone marrow donor leave has also been clarified for 2012. During a one year period, employees are allowed 30 days of leave for organ donation and 5 days of leave for bone marrow donation, with the law now stating that the leave days are to be calculated as business days.
Discrimination Law
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) has been amended to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on genetic information, including genetic tests of an employee or his or her family members, and the existence of a disease or disorder in family members of the employee. FEHA differs from a similar federal law in that FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees, while the federal law covers employers with 15 or more employees.
FEHA has also been updated to clarify that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression is prohibited. Previously, only the term gender identity was used. Gender expression is defined as, “a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” Employee dress codes must allow employees to dress in a manner consistent with both the employee’s gender identity and gender expression.
Additionally, health care service plans and health insurance policies issued to California residents must provide equal coverage to domestic partners as that provided to spouses. While this has been the standing policy in California, the new law ensures that employers located outside California and with a majority of employees located outside of California must comply with California law as it pertains to California residents.
Wage and Hour Laws
Employees alleging violations of the minimum wage may now recover liquidated damages as a result of a complaint heard before the Labor Commissioner. Liquidated damages, which serve to punish the employer, are permitted in an amount equal to the unpaid wages owed to the employee. Put simply, for every dollar an employee is awarded in unpaid wages, the Labor Commissioner is authorized to award an additional dollar in penalties. Previously, employees could receive liquidated damages only after filing a complaint in civil court.
In the prevailing wage arena, which applies to specified state or federal public works contracts, the minimum penalty for wage violations has been raised from $10 to $40 per day for each worker paid less than the prevailing wage, and the maximum has been raised from $50 to $200.

When it comes to new year’s business resolutions, some cannot fall by the wayside. Resolving to make sure that your business is in compliance with the new California employment laws for 2012 is an easy resolution to keep, and one that will help keep your employees happy and avoid costly litigation.

Continue reading ›

|

During the past few months, we have seen an increase in hiring from small startups and larger corporations here in San Jose and other parts of Silicon Valley. At this time of year, when companies are about to review Forms W-2 and 1099 for their workers, it is a good time for a reminder about California worker reporting requirements. In California, when a company hires a new employee, it is required to report this to the Employment Development Department (the “EDD”) within 20 days of hire, regardless of whether the employee is full-time or part-time, or the amount of compensation.

If a business hires an independent contractor and pays the contractor more than $600, or enters into a contract with that individual for $600 or more, within a calendar year, the business is required to report the hiring to the EDD within 20 days of making a payment. Although the hiring of a new employee need only be reported once, the hiring of an independent contractor must be reported every year. However, if a company contracts with another business that provides a tax identification number rather than a social security number, the company hiring that business does not need to report to the EDD.

It is wise for a company to report to the EDD contractors it expects to pay in January of each year (e.g. continuing contracts) when the company prepares and reviews 1099s for the prior year. There is no penalty if a company reports a contractor and then the contractor does not actually perform services in the new year. However, the EDD could assess a penalty against a business for each failure to report a contractor within the required time frames. Source: Spidells California Taxletter Vol. 33.10.

|

Starting in April, 2012, the EDD will calculate an ex-employee’s unemployment claim differently than it does now. Currently, the EDD calculates the unemployment claim based on a lookback period of one year ending two quarters prior to the termination of employment. In April, 2012, the EDD will calculate the claim based on a lookback period of one year but ending one quarter prior to the termination of employment. This is a good reason to convert to online filing if you haven’t already. For online filers, the EDD will already have this information and the change will be seamless to your business. However, if you do not file online, the EDD may not yet have your wages report for the prior quarter, or may simply not have processed it yet. In that case, you will receive a request for wage verification, and the employee will receive a request for proof of wages claimed. As the employer, you will have 10 days to complete the form and mail it back.

Source: Spidells California Taxletter Vol. 33.11, November 1, 2011, pages 130-131.

|

As always, be careful when dealing with employees. I recently was contacted by a small business owner in Sunnyvale who was irate because her previous business attorney assisted her with a new alternative workweek schedule and all the employees agreed. Then, years later, they had to lay off some employees and the terminated employees just made a claim for overtime for all the hours worked over eight in a day. Because the alternative workweek was not agreed to in a secret ballot, it was not upheld by the Labor Board and her company had to pay significant amounts to several ex-employees.

In the past few years, I’ve noticed that more and more small businesses and corporations in San Jose and throughout Santa Clara County have moved a portion, or all, of their employees from a standard five day, eight hours a day workweek to a four day, ten hours a day workweek. A company that is interested in implementing this type of alternative workweek schedule must go through the proper process for implementing the schedule, or the company may risk misclassifying employee hours worked and end up paying penalties and fines for the misclassification. If an alternative workweek schedule is implemented correctly, an employer may be exempt from paying overtime to employees working up to ten hours a day, four days a week. Alternative workweek schedules can be proposed for an entire work unit or as a part of a menu of options for a work unit.

In California, there are several actions that must be taken before an alternative workweek schedule can be adopted by a company. A company cannot simply impose the new schedule on its workforce. One required action is for the company to hold a meeting with employees who would be affected by an alternative workweek schedule. The meeting is held so that the employer can discuss the effects of the alternative workweek on the affected employees and the employees can vote on the proposed schedule.

The following are some steps that should be taken before the vote can take place:

• The employer must first provide a written notice to the affected employees. The notice will inform the employees that the company would like to adopt an alternative workweek schedule, and invite them to attend a meeting to discuss the effects of the alternative workweek and vote on the proposal. The written notice, which must be provided 14 days before the actual vote, should disclose the effects of the proposed arrangement on employees’ wages, hours and benefits, and include meeting logistics.

• The proposed alternative workweek schedule must be adopted in a secret ballot election by at least two-thirds of the affected employees in the work unit. The secret ballot election must be held during regular working hours at the employees’ work site.

• Ballots for the election can only be cast by the affected employees.

• The results of the election must be reported by the employer to the Division of Labor Statistics and Research within 30 days after the results of the vote are final. The report must be given in letter format and must include the date of the election, a final tally of the vote (number of “yes” and “no” votes), the size of the unit considering the change to an alternative workweek, the nature of the employer’s business, contact name and phone number. This information becomes public record.

• The letter must be sent to the following address:
Division of Labor Statistics and Research
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102

• If a work unit votes in favor of an alternative workweek schedule, employees who are affected by the change may not be required to work those new work hours for at least 30 days after the announcement of the final results of the election.

If an employer adopts an alternative workweek schedule consisting of four, ten hour days, the employer must still pay overtime pay of 1½ times the hourly rate for any hours worked in excess of ten hours per day up to twelve hours, and double time for any hours worked over twelve. The employer must also have a standard five days, eight hours schedule available for employees who are unable to work the four day schedule.

If you have any questions about implementing an alternative workweek, talk to a professional with experience in this area and don’t assume that if all the employees agree everything will be fine.

Continue reading ›

|

Whether your company is a large manufacturer corporation in San Jose or a small service partnership in Los Gatos, you will eventually be forced to deal with terminating an employee. Terminations can be especially daunting because they are one of the most common reasons companies are sued. Therefore, whenever possible, it is important to plan and prepare for a termination before actually firing the employee.

I recently helped an LLC in Santa Clara set up a progressive discipline plan for their company in order to set up systems to assist management and employees before someone gets to the termination stage. Before an employee is fired, many companies use a form of progressive discipline when dealing with employee problems. Under progressive discipline an employee receives greater disciplinary measures when employment continues to be unsatisfactory. It is imperative that all disciplinary actions are documented in writing. If a system of progressive discipline is used, all managers should be trained on that system. If managers are not properly trained, a disgruntled employee may have a stronger claim for wrongful discharge than if the system had not been used at all. Whether a system of progressive discipline is used or not, it is critical that all disciplinary actions be documented.

If a termination is inevitable, you should have a plan in place before firing an employee. However, there are times when you must fire an employee immediately, without any prior planning, because he has done something that poses a threat to other employees, your company or your clients. Prior to termination, you should review any termination procedures in the employee handbook, to the extent they exist, to ensure that your company is following its own procedures. If you are worried about an employee making a claim against the company upon termination and you want to request the employee release the company from all claims, you should contact an attorney to assist you in preparing a severance agreement.

On termination, you must provide the former employee with the final paycheck including any accrued but unused PTO or vacation pay, a change of status notice, and the EDD pamphlet “For Your Benefit, California’s Programs for the Unemployed.” If the employee is a shareholder or option holder, you should review all applicable documents prior to the termination for notices or deadlines related to termination of employment. However, do not give the employee legal or tax advice regarding those documents or their rights.

When conducting a termination, conduct it in a neutral, private place such as a conference room. Have the final paycheck and change of status notice ready for the meeting. If you are offering a severance agreement, have that agreement prepared as well. Many employees will not sign the severance agreement immediately so be sure to give them the allotted time in the agreement to sign it and don’t give the employee any severance payments until the severance agreement has been signed, or 8 days later if the employee is over 40 and therefore subject to age discrimination rules.

You should always have two managers present during a firing. During the meeting, tell the employee within the first few minutes that he is being fired and tell the employee why he is being terminated. Although you do not need a reason to fire an at-will employee, you may not do so for the wrong reason (e.g. discrimination), so be careful in what you say. Also, if you say the termination is a result of restructuring, but the reason is really poor performance, the inconsistency may be used against you if the company is sued. Do not argue with the employee and do not be so complimentary that the employee wonders why he is being terminated. You are not required to give employees a written reason for termination. However, if you decide to, be sure that your legal counsel reviews those reasons. Avoid any reference to anything that could be considered evidence of discrimination, especially if you are terminating someone who is in a protected class. Always be courteous to the employee. You should also explain any benefits, such as COBRA, that the employee may receive. Have someone take notes during and after the termination to document the process and what was said at the meeting. Lastly, you should remind the employee of any continuing obligations to the company, such as confidentiality.

Once an employee has been terminated, be sure to get any company keys, cell phone or laptop that the employee had. Also be sure to change phone codes, computer passwords, alarm codes or other passwords that the employee may have had access to.

Continue reading ›

|

Silicon Valley is experiencing a “war for talent,” even as the nation struggles with unemployment. The Bay Area has not been unaffected by unemployment, but with the number of high technology startups based in cities such as Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose, and Santa Clara, companies are finding themselves competing for talent. The value of human capital is greater than ever, which is why it is essential for companies to perform assessments on their employees. Employees can be a company’s most valuable asset or its greatest liability.

Conducting employee performance reviews is one of the most important and often most dreaded tasks of management. Employee reviews take a lot of time and cause a lot of stress for managers even if the reviews are generally positive. Many employers try to avoid employee performance reviews. However, regardless of the size of your company, not conducting performance reviews can really hurt you both in productivity and in an increased risk of employment-related litigation.

I recently worked with a San Jose consulting business that was sued by a former employee of the corporation. The company had a salesperson in their Mountain View office that was drastically underperforming, but had never documented those failures in any way. The corporation eventually fired her and the salesperson then sued the company for wrongful termination. An employee file documented with poor performance reviews could have made that case go away much faster, and kept the settlement offers much lower. Below are some suggestions to make the most out of review time.

Continue reading ›