The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors recently passed the Los Angeles County Fair Workweek Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which generally requires that certain retail employers in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles give workers their schedules two weeks in advance, compensate them for last-minute schedule changes and provide at least ten hours between shifts. The Ordinance will go into effect on July 1, 2025, and largely duplicates the Los Angeles Fair Work Week Ordinance which became effective in the City of Los Angeles on April 1, 2023. The Ordinance defines “Retail Employers” as “any business, including non-profit organizations, whose revenues are generated primarily from the sale to end users of tangible products that are primarily for personal, household, or family purposes, including, but not limited to, appliances, clothing, electronics, groceries, and household items” and employs, directly or indirectly, 300 or more employees globally, inclusive of persons hired through contracts or temporary employment agencies, retail subsidiaries, and franchisees who operate larger (15000 square feet or more) retail establishments.
The impact of the Ordinance begins prior to the start of work of any new employee. Before hiring a new employee, and within ten days of any employee request, the retail employer must provide a written good faith estimate of that employee’s work schedule, which must include the Notice of Retail Employee's Workweek Rights (discussed below). The prediction must be fact-based, and can be based on forecasts, prior hours worked by a similarly situated retail employee, or other relevant information. The estimate must be provided in English, Spanish and any other language spoken by at least 10% of the workforce (defined by the Ordinance as the “Primary Languages”). If an employee’s actual work hours substantially deviate (defined as a 20% difference in hours, or a difference in the days of the week worked or in the work locations, in six out of twelve workweeks) from the good faith estimate, the employer must have a documented, legitimate business reason that was unknown at the time the good faith estimate was provided in order to justify the deviation.
The Ordinance requires that retail employers to provide retail employees who work at least two hours a week within an unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles with written notice of their work schedules at least fourteen calendar days before the start of the work period in the Primary Languages. Notice may be provided by posting the work schedule in a physical, accessible location, or by any means calculated to provide actual notice to each employee. If an employer makes changes to the work schedule, written notice must be provided to the employee, and the employee has a right to decline any changes, including changes to hours or work location. If an employee accepts the changes, the consent must be documented and must be obtained in advance of the change; ongoing or general consent will not suffice. Employees who substantiate a concern for the safety of themselves or their family may request, verbally or in writing, that the employee’s work schedule not be shared with those who do not have a need to know, and the retail employer must immediately implement that request and maintain it until it is withdrawn.
The Ordinance also restricts retailers’ ability to hire new workers, contractors, temporary employees or staffing agencies. Before a retail employer can hire, it must offer the available work to current employees if a current employee is qualified, and the additional work hours would not require payment of overtime. The offer must be in writing and in the Primary Languages, and must be provided at least 72 hours before hiring any new employees, contractors, temporary employees or staffing agencies to perform the job. The retail employee must have 48 hours to accept the offer. At the end of the 48 hours the offer is not accepted, or if the employee provides written confirmation that they are not interested in the additional work, the employer may then proceed with the hiring. If more retail employees accept the offer than there are hours available, then the retail employer must use a fair and equitable distribution method to allocate the hours.
Under the Ordinance’s predictability pay requirement, the employer must also pay one additional hour of time for each change to a scheduled date, time, or location, or that results in additional work time that exceeds fifteen minutes. An employee must be compensated at one-half the regular rate of pay for a reduction in that employee’s work schedule that resulted from: the changing the start or end time of a shift resulting in a loss of more than fifteen minutes; the changing the date of a shift; cancelling a shift; or the scheduling the employee for an on-call shift for which the employee is not called. Predictability pay is not required when: the employee requests the change; the employee accepts a change due to the absence of another scheduled worker (in which case, the employer must communicate to the employee that acceptance of the change is voluntary and the employee has a right to decline, and must also document the specific nature of the request and the employee’s consent); the employee accepts additional hours pursuant as a result of an off prior to hiring new workers; the employee’s hours are reduced due to the employee’s violation of policy or law; the employer’s operations are compromised due to law; or when the extra hours worked require payment of overtime.
Retail employers under the Ordinance are required to provide workers with a minimum of ten hours of rest in between shifts. An employee may agree to work shifts without this minimum rest, if they provide written consent and the employer pays the employee a premium rate of 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for each hour of the second shift not separated by at least ten hours.
Retail employees have the right to request certain hours, times or work locations, and the employer must provide a reason in writing for any denial. The Ordinance prohibits employers from requiring that employees find coverage for an employee who is unable to work for reasons protected by law. The Ordinance also prohibits any retaliation against employees who assert rights established by the law.
On or before July 1st of each year, the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) is required to make available a Notice of Retail Employee's Workweek Rights, templates for the good faith estimate of work schedule, the work schedule, and forms to notify retail employees of schedule changes. Retail employers must post the Notice of Retail Employee's Workweek Rights in the Primary Languages at any workplace where any retail employee works. For employees who do not have regular access to the workplace or job site, the retail employer must provide a copy of the notice electronically or by mail annually.
Retail employers must keep three years of records for current and former employees including work schedules, good faith estimates of hours, written correspondence about work schedule changes, written offers and responses for additional work hours, and payroll records. The failure by the employer to maintain these records creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer has violated the Ordinance.
The DCBA has the right to inspect the employer’s records, and to investigate and enforce the Ordinance. In addition to restitution, the DCBA can require payment of penalties of up to $500 for the violation of each section of the Ordinance, and up to $1,000 for retaliation, payable to the employee, along with possible administrative fines payable to the county. Subsequent fines within a three-year period may be increased by 50%. The maximum penalty that may be imposed for violation of the Ordinance each year is $20,000 per retail employee, and $30,000 per employee for retaliation. Suspension, revocation or denial of an employer’s county license is also possible. Employees are also entitled to file lawsuits seeking to enforce the Ordinance, and may seek to collect back wages, penalties, reinstatement of employment, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
This blog is presented under protest by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. It is essentially the random thoughts and opinions of someone who lives in the trenches of the war that often is employment law–he/she may well be a little shell-shocked. So if you are thinking “woohoo, I just landed some free legal advice that will fix all my problems!”, think again. This is commentary, people, a sketchy overview of some current legal issue with a dose of humor, but commentary nonetheless; as if Dennis Miller were a lawyer…and still mildly amusing. No legal advice here; you would have to pay real US currency for that (unless you are my mom, and even then there are limits). But feel free to contact us with your questions and comments—who knows, we might even answer you. And if you want to spread this stuff around, feel free to do so, but please keep it in its present form (‘cause you can’t mess with this kind of poetry). Big news: Copyright 2023. All rights reserved; yep, all of them.
If you have any questions about this article, contact the writer directly, assuming he or she was brave enough to attach their name to it. If you have any questions regarding this blog or your life in general, contact Kelly O. Scott, Esq., commander in chief of this blog and Head Honcho (official legal title) of ECJ’s Employment Law Department.
- Partner
Kelly Scott is a partner and head of the firm’s Employment Law Department.
Mr. Scott is also a member of the Litigation Department and has practiced law since 1987. His areas of practice include representation of employers in all ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014