The Stoel Rives Labor & Employment Law Blog
Learn more about Stoel Rives' Wage & Hour Law team.
In yet another blow to agricultural employers, grab your stopwatches. In Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., the Washington Supreme Court has just held that agricultural employers are required to compensate piece-rate workers on a separate hourly basis for time spent performing tasks outside the specific scope of the piece-rate work.
In a narrow 5-4…
Employers in the Ninth Circuit (which includes Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawai’i) can no longer justify pay differentials between male and female employees based upon employees’ prior compensation. In an April 9, 2018 decision, Rizo v. Yovino, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled prior Circuit law to hold that an employee’s previous compensation, either alone or in combination with other factors, cannot form the basis of a wage differential between men and women.
While the Equal Pay Act permits “a differential based on any other factor other than sex,” the Court held that an employee’s prior compensation is not a “factor other than sex.” Specifically, the Court held that the above “catchall” exception under the Equal Pay Act is intended to allow employers to rely upon only job-related factors, such as experience, educational background, ability, or prior job performance. Prior compensation, the Court opined, is not job-related.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That Basing Employees’ Wages on Their Prior Compensation Violates the Equal Pay Act
On October 12, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed several bills regulating a wide range of employer actions, everything from the labeling of cleaning fluids to the employment application process. While compliance with all of these new laws is important, four are of particular importance as they directly impact the information employers can seek from potential applicants, the training that must be provided to current employees, and protected leaves.
AB 168 and AB 1008 restrict the information employers can obtain from potential job applicants. AB 168 makes it unlawful for California employers to either obtain or rely upon an applicant’s salary history to determine whether to offer an applicant a job or what salary to offer an applicant. The law, however, does not prohibit a job applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing to a prospective employer his or her salary history. If a job applicant voluntarily discloses information in this way, then the employer is permitted to rely upon that history in determining the salary for that applicant.
AB 1008 imposes a statewide “ban-the-box” law. Specifically, this law prohibits California employers with five or more employees from (1) including on any application for employment any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant’s conviction history or (2) inquiring into or considering an applicant’s conviction history prior to providing that applicant with a conditional offer of employment. The law also provides that employers who intend to deny an applicant a position of employment based upon that applicant’s conviction history must make an individualized assessment as to whether the applicant’s prior criminal history has a detrimental impact on the prospective employment. Employers must also provide applicants with notice of a preliminary decision to deny employment based on the individualized assessment and allow applicants the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of their conviction history. Prior to the signing of AB 1008, many local jurisdictions had enacted similar ordinances prohibiting the use of an applicant’s prior conviction history in the initial application process. With passage of AB 1008, this prohibition is now statewide.
Continue Reading California Implements Significant Changes in the Employment Application Process, Employee Training, and Protected Leaves
Employers know that the salary rule for “white collar” exemptions from President Obama’s Department of Labor (“DOL”) was blocked by a federal court last year (we blogged about that here). (UPDATE: A Texas federal court invalided the rule on August 31, 2017.) That rule would have more than doubled the salary requirement for an overtime exemption. Now, President Trump’s DOL has formally announced that it will not pursue that rule. Instead, it is soliciting comments to draft its own rule.
Employers have an opportunity to weigh in on what, if any, changes should be made to the white collar exemptions. The DOL’s request for information suggests it is seriously considering making at least some changes to the exemptions. …
Continue Reading Department of Labor Seeks Input on New Rules for White Collar Exemptions
The Washington Supreme Court case Brady v. Autozone recently addressed the standards that apply when a non-exempt employee alleges that an employer did not provide meal breaks. In short: it is now clear that if a lawsuit is brought, employers are likely to bear the burden to show that break laws have not been violated.[1] …
Continue Reading The Washington Supreme Court Addresses Meal Break Claims
Oregon is poised to become the first state to enact a “secure scheduling” or “fair work week” law that will impose significant new employee scheduling requirements on certain categories of large employers. Senate Bill 828, which will set new scheduling standards for employers with 500 or more employees worldwide in the retail, hospitality, or food services industries, passed the Senate last week and just passed the House. It has now been sent to Governor Kate Brown, who has indicated she will sign the bill following a routine legal review.
Continue Reading Breaking News: Oregon Legislature Passes Employee Scheduling Bill
“Equal pay for equal work.” Everyone – employees and employers alike – can agree that no workers should be paid less than others simply because of their gender, race, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic. But the reality of the pay gap is more complicated. Employers make salary decisions based on a number of business factors, like experience, education, and merit, as well as prior salary history. The Oregon Equal Pay Act (the “Act”), which was unanimously approved by the legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Kate Brown this week, will prohibit employers from asking job applicants about past salary history.
Continue Reading Time to Revise Your Job Applications: Oregon Prohibits Salary History Inquiries in Effort to Address Systemic Wage Inequality
Although federal contractors were able to breathe a sigh of relief after the current administration put a stop to President Obama’s “Blacklisting” executive order, employers in the state of Washington must now comply with their own “blacklisting” law. On May 8, Washington state signed into law Senate Bill 5301 (“SB 5301”), which bans employers from competing for state and local contracts if they have “willfully” violated select wage statutes in the past three years. Employers with such violations are deemed not to be “responsible bidders” and are disqualified from obtaining public works projects. SB 5301 passed with bi-partisan support.
Continue Reading Washington State Enacts Its Own “Blacklisting” Statute
In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the California Supreme Court answered three questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning California’s “day of rest” statutes. The Court’s decision clarifies a significant ambiguity for employers regarding the obligation to provide employees with their statutorily mandated day of rest.
Mendoza involved a putative class action filed by former Nordstrom employees alleging Nordstrom violated California’s Labor Code by failing to provide them with one day of rest in seven and causing them to work more than six in seven days. After the district court granted summary judgment in Nordstrom’s favor, plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies California’s Day of Rest Statutes
Oregon manufacturing employers have been following the ongoing turmoil surrounding the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries’ (“BOLI”) recent interpretation of Oregon’s requirement that manufacturing employees receive overtime when they work more than 10 hours in a day. In the latest turn, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge ruled yesterday that, contrary to BOLI’s advice, a manufacturing employer is not required to pay employees daily overtime and weekly overtime when manufacturing employees work more than 40 hours in a work week. Instead, the judge ruled that the employer must pay the employees the greater of either weekly overtime or daily overtime, but not both. A copy of the opinion in the case (Mazahua v. Portland Specialty Baking LLC) is here.
Here is the background. …
Continue Reading Breaking: Court Rules Against Double Overtime for Oregon Manufacturing Employers
