In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Oregon legislature amended the definition of “compensation” in the Oregon Equal Pay Act to temporarily exempt hiring/signing and retention bonuses from the limitations imposed by the Act. The temporary exemption, however, expires on September 28, 2022.Continue Reading Oregon Pay Equity Update: The Status of Hiring Bonuses
Oregon employers that require arbitration for employment-related disputes recently received some good news from the Oregon Supreme Court. In Gist v. ZoAn Management, Inc., the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it limited the arbitrator’s authority to award him relief. Instead, the Court ruled that the arbitration
On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services and decided two critical questions: first, whether an employee is entitled to “waiting time penalties” for unpaid premium pay, and second, whether employers are required to report premium pay on their employees’ wage statements.
As all
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court determined that the phrases “regular rate of compensation” and “regular rate of pay” are synonymous for the purposes of California Labor Code section 226.7(c) and the California Industrial Wage Orders. With this seemingly innocuous ruling, however, the Supreme Court has handed a potentially
It’s that time of year to prepare for minimum wage increases and update workplace posters. Beginning July 1, minimum wage rates throughout Oregon increase, to $14.00 for Portland Metro, $12.00 for Nonurban Counties, and $12.75 as Standard. (See here for descriptions of the areas in each category.) BOLI’s 2021-2022 Commonly Required Postings in Oregon
It’s common knowledge that an employee’s overtime rate is “time and a half” the regular rate of pay. But that truism begs the question: what exactly is the regular rate of pay? Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit analyzed whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) required a company to include per diem payments that
In case you missed it (did anyone miss it?), President Joe Biden was sworn into office yesterday. Although workplace issues are hardly the only pressing item on the new President’s agenda, employers should be prepared for the rollout of additional employee protections under the Biden administration.
Priorities That President Biden Has Already Announced
Extending and
Last year, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, which signaled a seismic shift in the way California employers classify workers as either independent contractors or employees. On September 4, 2020, Governor Newsom signed AB 2257, which modifies (slightly) some of the rules and provisions of AB 5.
To recap, AB 5 codified the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex. In Dynamex, the Supreme Court rejected the multifactor test set forth in S.G. Borello & Songs, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations for classifying workers and announced a new, more objective standard for determining worker classification for the purposes of the California wage orders. Under this new standard, the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor who was not intended to be included within the coverage of the California wage orders. In order to satisfy this burden, the hiring entity must establish all of the following: (1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of work, (2) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Continue Reading California Modifies the ABC Test – But It Doesn’t Really Help
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water (or stop sheltering in place anyway), a wave of COVID-19-related employment lawsuits are being filed across the country. At our last count, nearly 50 labor and employment-specific cases have been filed. The first in Oregon was filed earlier this month by a former assisted living facility employee who seeks $950,000 in damages for alleged whistleblower and sick leave retaliation. Although the types of claims being brought by employees are typical—wage/hour, whistleblower, contract, wrongful termination, protected leave and discrimination claims, WARN Act violations—employers now face a perfect storm: defending real-time decisions made to keep their businesses afloat against the backdrop of a global pandemic that has completely disrupted business operations. (And as we all know, “You can’t just call time out and stroll on into the beach if you don’t like the way things are going.”)
As we have mentioned during several COVID-19-related client briefings, courts will now have to wade into murky waters and provide clarity on how newly enacted or amended local, state and federal leave laws such as the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) operate, especially where statutory and regulatory guidance has not always been clear. Courts will also need to provide direction on how well-settled legal schemes, such as disability and contract law, apply in the face of a pandemic.
Of particular concern for employers right now are trends in wage and hour class actions suits, which can pose significant risk of crippling wage penalties and plaintiffs’ attorney fees, as well as leave discrimination and whistleblower retaliation claims. These kinds of claims could draw sympathy from jurors and sink a business. Here are a few of examples of employment cases recently filed across the country, and trust us, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
Continue Reading COVID-19 Litigation: The Next Wave
California is like every other state in that it does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off. Unlike in most other states, however, if an employer does provide employees with paid time off, then employees have a vested right in such time. What this means is that employers are prohibited from enacting “use it or lose it” paid time off policies. It also means that upon separation, California employers must pay out employees for any unused paid time off.
Due to these requirements, and to remain competitive with other employers, some employers have instituted “unlimited” paid time off policies whereby employees do not accrue any specific amount of vacation time but, rather, are free to take (or not take) as much (or as little) vacation as they want. The commonly held belief amongst most employers is that such unlimited paid time off policies benefit employees by providing them with flexible schedules while, at the same time, allowing employers to avoid the obligation to pay out any unused paid time off upon separation. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation (McPherson), the California Court of Appeal issued a shot across the bow to employers adhering to this commonly held belief by holding that the unlimited paid time off policy at issue did obligate the employer to pay out unused paid time off upon termination.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Issues Warning to Employers with Unlimited Paid Time Off Policies