Fenwick Employment Brief

by Fenwick & West LLP
Contact

Legislative Update

Ninth Circuit Affirms Iskanian Ruling Rendering PAGA Waivers Illegal

Whistleblower Statute Protects Employees From Retaliation For Reporting Personal Matters

News Bites -

Chipotle Sued In Class Action For FCRA Violations

DOL Reaches $18 Million Settlement With Haliburton For Employee Misclassification

EEOC Focuses On Transgender Rights

Legislative Update

Governor Brown recently signed into state law the following employment law bills (among others):

  • SB 358—Referred to as the California Fair Pay Act, this law is directed at closing the pay differential between male and female employees, including prohibiting an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, as specified.
  • AB 1506—Amends the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) to allow employers a limited window to cure certain wage statement deficiencies before a PAGA action may be pursued.
  • AB 1509—Prevents employers from retaliating against employees for being a family member of an employee who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in activities protected under certain Labor Code sections (mainly those addressing whistleblowing).

Much to the relief of employers, the governor vetoed a bill (AB 465) attempting to prohibit all mandatory pre-employment agreements to arbitrate Labor Code violations.

Please see our September 2015 issue below for more details on the above and other new laws.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Iskanian Ruling Rendering PAGA Waivers Illegal

In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed the California Supreme Court’s Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC decision (originally summarized in our June 2012 issue below), which held that pre-dispute arbitration agreements between employers and employees cannot require waiver of representative claims under PAGA.

Sakkab filed a putative class action lawsuit against Luxottica alleging that the company misclassified its employees as exempt in order to avoid paying overtime and providing meal and rest breaks. The district court granted Luxottica’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed Sakkab’s complaint based on the arbitration provision in its Retail Associates Guide that Sakkab signed. The provision contained a waiver of collective or representative actions. The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (originally summarized in our April 2011 Litigation Alert below), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) would preempt a state rule regarding waiver of PAGA claims.

By the time the Ninth Circuit heard Sakkab’s appeal, the California Supreme Court had decided Iskanian, which held that PAGA waivers are unenforceable. In coming to the ultimate conclusion that pre-dispute agreements that waive PAGA claims are unenforceable under California law, and that the FAA does not preempt this rule, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the purpose of PAGA. PAGA was enacted to provide civil penalties for certain California Labor Code violations that previously carried only criminal penalties. Further, it allowed employees, on behalf of the state (the Labor Workforce and Development Agency) to recover such penalties and keep a percentage of the penalties it recovered, with the remainder being given to the state. This alleviated strained state resources, which did not have the bandwidth to pursue such Labor Code violations.

The court noted that “a law established for a public reason may not be contravened by private agreement.” It agreed with the Iskanian court that agreements with PAGA waivers would harm the state’s interests in enforcing the Labor Code and receiving civil penalties that serve as a deterrent for labor violations. In addition, it stated that Congress’s intent in enacting the FAA was not to allow the contracting parties’ expectations to “trump” any and all other interests.

In reversing and remanding the lower court’s decision, the court noted that Sakkab did not argue that the entire arbitration provision should be rendered void due to its unlawful PAGA waiver and tasked the lower court with deciding this issue and whether his non-PAGA claims should be litigated or arbitrated.

Employers should examine their arbitration agreements to ensure compliance with this ruling, which provides further clarity that PAGA waivers are not enforceable in California.

Whistleblower Statute Protects Employees From Retaliation For Reporting Personal Matters

A California Court of Appeal in Cardenas v. M. Fanaian, D.D.S., Inc. held that Labor Code § 1102.5, which protects employees from retaliation for reporting illegal conduct to law enforcement agencies, applies to an employee’s report of illegal conduct of a private or individual nature unrelated to the employer’s operation or enterprise.

Cardenas was a dental hygienist. She received an expensive ring from her husband for her twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. Cardenas wore her new ring to work every day until one day when it went missing. She had reason to believe that a coworker had stolen the ring. When she told her boss, he discouraged her from reporting the incident to the police. Cardenas and her husband went ahead and filed a police report for theft of the ring. The police visited the dental office where Cardenas worked a few times to interview witnesses and collect evidence. After one of the visits, Cardenas’s boss told her that the police investigation was becoming a distraction for the office and that he would have to let her go.

Cardenas sued her employer for violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The employer argued that Cardenas could not maintain a claim for violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 for reporting the personal matter (i.e., theft of her wedding ring) since the legislative intent was to protect employees from retaliation for reporting illegal conduct related to the employment operation or enterprise. The court disagreed. It noted that if the legislature had wished to limit the application of Labor Code § 1102.5, it could have included clarifying language explicitly restricting protection of the statute to reporting employer-related issues. However, the legislature did not and thus the court was forced to apply the statute based on its plain language.

The court’s interpretation and application of the Labor Code and its protection of employees is broad and shows the importance that California courts place on preventing retaliation in the workplace, even with respect to alleged unlawful behavior that is unrelated to the operation of the business.

News Bites

Chipotle Sued In Class Action For FCRA Violations

A recent class action lawsuit in California federal court alleges that Chipotle buried its Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) disclosure in its employment application, so as to allegedly render the disclosure inadequate, and the background check on which it was based unlawful. The named plaintiff in the action alleged that Chipotle placed the FCRA disclosure in the employment application and surrounded it with distracting language. However, FCRA requires that such disclosures are made in a document consisting solely of the disclosure. The plaintiff also claims that Chipotle did not provide her the required summary of her rights under FCRA and failed to provide a box to check to indicate that she wanted a copy of the background check report (a violation of California law). The lawsuit seeks recovery under both FCRA and California law. While no definitive rulings(s) have been issued, the suit is a reminder to employers that they must be vigilant about FCRA compliance when conducting background checks on which employment decisions will be based.

DOL Reaches $18 Million Settlement With Haliburton For Employee Misclassification

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) found that Haliburton had misclassified over 1,000 of its employees (28 positions, including field service representatives, reliability tech specialists, and pipe recovery specialists) as exempt from overtime. To settle the matter, Haliburton agreed to pay $18.3 million, a substantial DOL recovery to be sure. Both employee and contractor misclassification are hot button issues for the DOL and state agencies. Companies should evaluate their workforces for (1) employee misclassification in high risk areas such as technical support, customer service, and sales and (2) how they are using contractors in their business—engaging individuals as contractors to try them out before hiring them as employees, for long-term projects, or when the contractors are providing the same services as employees, create risk of contractor misclassification.

EEOC Focuses On Transgender Rights

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently joined a lawsuit by a transgender male (transitioning from female) who claims he was told by his employer that he was required to dress and act as a woman in the workplace so as not to confuse customers. The employee has sued for gender identity discrimination under Title VII. In joining the suit, the EEOC stated that combating gender identity discrimination is a “priority issue.” Employers are required by law to reasonably accommodate transgender employees, including as to their dress and appearance, as well as bathroom usage, among other issues.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Fenwick & West LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Fenwick & West LLP
Contact
more
less

Fenwick & West LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.