Wage and hour lawyer

Are California Employers Required to Reimburse for Remote Office Expenses?

April 4, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

The surge in remote work arrangements had led to questions about the kinds of expenses for which California employers are responsible and which they aren’t.

The trend of remote work was already climbing before the pandemic hit, with 43 percent of workers saying they worked from home at least some of the time. According to the Pew Research Center, about 60 percent of workers say their jobs can be done from home all or most of the time. Most were already working from home before the pandemic. Currently, more than than half of workers who have a physical job site say they are choosing to work remotely.

Employers have become more open to telework where possible – not the least of which because it saves them all kinds of expenses. Not only are they saving on commercial real estate expenses, there’s increased productivity (fewer distractions and less tardiness and absenteeism), fewer workers’ compensation claims, broader talent pools to choose from, and higher employee retention rates.

But to what extent are employers required to cover in-home office expenses for remote employees? Continue Reading ›

California Employment Lawyer Take on Company Vacation Policies

August 22, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Summer is the season for vacations. But as a Los Angeles employment lawyer, I see many mistakes employers make with regard to vacation policies. I’m referring not just to poorly-planned or problematic policies, but ones that may potentially run afoul of the law.

As the California Department of Industrial Relations points out, there is no law that requires employers to provide workers with vacation time – paid or unpaid. However, if the employer does have a vacation police, agreement, or practice to provide paid vacation, then there are certain restrictions that apply with regard to how the employer must implement it. (One might wonder, then, why employers provide it at all – and it comes down to the fact that it’s an expectation that many prospective employees have. Companies would have a tough time recruiting good workers if they offered no vacation time at all. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 90 percent of full-time employees in private industry receive some amount of paid vacation.)

As employees are cashing in this summer on their pre-scheduled vacation time, here are some things they – and their employers – should keep in mind.

California Supreme Court Allows Employee to Sue Staffing Agency Client After Settling With Staffing Agency

July 5, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Our Los Angeles employment lawyers have been following the case of Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, which involves a dispute by a nurse against both a staffing agency (which hired her) and the staffing agency’s client (a medical center where she worked). The interesting thing about this case is that while the nurse had settled an employment class action lawsuit against the staffing agency, she continued pursuing a case against the medical center.

The medical center argued that this was not allowed because the prior class action settlement freed the staffing agency “and its agents” from future liability. However, the California Supreme Court has just ruled that the nurse may continue with her second class action lawsuit against the staffing agency’s client.

That ruling is noteworthy because it does not allow companies to sidle away from responsibility for labor law violations just by using a staffing agency.

According to court records, the plaintiff was employed by a nurse staffing agency who arranged for her to work at a hospital in Riverside. Wage and hour law violations at the hospital were what ultimately led to litigation. Continue Reading ›

California Meal & Rest Break Violations: Should Companies Also Face Pay Stub & Waiting Time Penalties?

January 7, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

The California Supreme Court is slated to decide a case expected to settle a long-running debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest break violations.

Employers, employees and labor law attorneys should be closely watching the case of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Petition for review of the case came after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the original trial court judgment.

The state high court is being asked to resolve two primary questions:

Does a violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (requiring premium wage payment for meal and rest period violations) give rise to additional claims for paystub penalties and waiting time penalties when companies pay an employee regular wages for breaks?
What interest rate applies for unpaid premium wages under the law?

As our Orange County wage and hour lawyers can explain, it has to do with what additional penalties are owed when employers fail to meet their legal pay obligations to workers deprived of meal and rest breaks, as afforded under the law.

How This California Employment Law Case Arose

This is a class action lawsuit filed by the primary plaintiff on behalf of himself and other current/former employees of a private security company (government contractor) who alleged that violations of meal break and rest break laws entitled them also to derivative remedies under laws pertaining to wait time penalties and pay stub penalties. Continue Reading ›

California Garment Workers Gain Added Wage Protection With SB 62 Passage

November 30, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

A new garment worker wage protection law passed in California is expected to have reverberations throughout the entire fashion industry nationally, and perhaps globally.

Senate Bill (SB) 62, also now known as the Garment Worker Protection Act, alters the way employees in the garment manufacturing industry are paid. Specifically, it prohibits companies from paying its garment manufacturing workers by the piece or unit or by piece rate, except when such a payment arrangement is approved as a result of a collective bargaining agreement. Instead, garment manufacturers must be paid no less than the applicable minimum wage. The law also broadens the definition of who is part of the clothing making industry for the purposes of enforcing wages. The definition now includes not only direct employers, but brand guarantors (those who contract with other firms to have garments made).

Garment makers and contractors who breach their duties as employers under the law may be subject to statutory, per-employee damages for every pay period. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Theft Lawsuit Costs McDonald’s $26 Million

October 7, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Tens of thousands of California fast-food workers at corporate-owned McDonald’s restaurants in California will be getting a cut of the $26 million class action lawsuit over years-old allegations of wage theft.

On average, each employee can expect to receive about $330, though some may have as much as $4,000 coming to them.

Business Insider reports the lawsuit was first filed seven years ago, with the corporation accused of engaging in numerous illegal practices to scam workers of fair wages, including:

Not paying all wages when they were due.
Not providing rest and meal breaks for workers.
Not paying overtime wages.
Not paying minimum wages.

California Freelance Journalists Sue Over New Independent Contractor Law

December 12, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A group of California freelance journalists are suing the state over an independent contractor law that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020, alleging it threatens free speech as well as their livelihood by requiring anyone who submits more than 35 pieces of content annually for a company to be considered an employee. In response, some companies like VOX Media have laid off workers en masse – or blacklisting California writers to hire those in other states.

Plaintiffs in American Society of Journalists and Authros v. Becerra assert that AB5 was drafted with the mindset that most writers and reporters are working in the traditional newspaper print model. The reality today is most journalists and producers of content are working in the digital realm, which operates quite differently.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the driving force behind AB5, said that while she sympathizes with legitimate freelancers who may have lost substantial income as a result of this measure, she likened media corporations that exploit workers to vultures. In other words, these weren’t good jobs anyway.

In fact, as our Los Angeles wage and hour lawyers know, some of these companies were already facing litigation for alleged employee misclassification. In one case, a writer who worked as a “site manager” for Deadspin wrote five articles weekly, managed other writers, policed the comment section and took directives from the media company’s management. For all this, she was compensated $125 monthly, which breaks down to about $6-an-hour – well below the minimum wage. But as an “independent contractor,” she wasn’t entitled to minimum wage. The reality is this kind of arrangement was probably illegal under existing employment law. AB5 makes it easier to hold these businesses accountable, and it’s not even the first of its kind in the country. Continue Reading ›

Banks Allegedly Botch Employee Rest & Meal Breaks, Overtime

September 24, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Employee rest periods and overtime are worker rights guaranteed in California by statute and overseen by regulators at the state’s Department of Industrial Relations. Although there are exceptions, most workers are guaranteed at least 10 minutes of rest for every 10 hours worked and must be paid overtime for every hour worked over 40. The laws are clear, and yet our employment wage and hour lawyers know far too many companies run afoul of them.

Some large banks in the country have been accused – and made to pay – repeatedly for failures in providing employees with rest breaks or pay overtime as required by law – in California and other states.

Recently, a federal judge in New Jersey approved a $35 million settlement to current and former employees at Wells Fargo & Co. who were made to work unpaid overtime outside normal hours. That lawsuit was initially filed three years ago, with the financial firm’s accused of not paying for all hours worked and/or not paying overtime. Workers were reportedly forced to work off-the-clock in order to meet unrealistic sales targets that would be impossible to achieve in a typical 40-hour workweeks.

That same bank had previously been accused of rest break violations. Continue Reading ›

California Wage & Hour Claims Not Subject to Federal De Minimis Rule

June 20, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Although federal labor laws cut employers a break when it comes to payment of “de minimus” work – that which is “trivial,” and only takes just a few minutes. In other words, the de minimum rule employers can compel workers to complete a minimal amount of work off-the-clock, rather than making them clock back in for an occasional couple minutes here-and-there.

However, a California Supreme Court decision last year held that defense was not applicable in the Golden State, as our lawmakers and courts expressly sought to provide greater protection for workers compared to federal law.

The state high court’s ruling in Troester v. Starbucks has proven a precedent, on which another federal appellate court ruling has been based. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Order 7 Class Action Against Orange County Retailer Reinstated by Appeals Court

March 8, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Does California’s Wage Order 7 require retailers to pay employees required to call ahead two hours before their “on-call shift,” even if those workers aren’t required to come in to work? That was the question recently at issue in the case of Ward v. Tilly’s Inc., wherein a California appellate court (in a divided opinion) reinstated a class action lawsuit against an Orange County retailer for alleged failure to do so.

According to the complaint, workers say they were required to call in two hours before each previously-scheduled “on-call shift.” Orange County wage and hour lawyers know this is common practice among retailers, designed to optimize scheduling in an industry where staffing needs can fluctuate not only seasonally, but weekly, daily and sometimes hourly.

In this case, the employer in question did not consider those employees who called in an told not to report to work as having “reported for work” within the meaning outlined by the relevant Wage Order 7. The employees disagree.

The trial court sided with the employer and dismissed the claim, finding the only way an employee could “report for work” was by physically showing up for work at the store. Continue Reading ›