Effective January 1, 2019, the California Department of Industrial Relations issued a new compensation threshold for exempt computer software employees, reflecting an increase of 4.2% from last year.

To qualify for the overtime exemption, computer software employees must be paid a salary of at least $94,603.25 annually ($7,883.62 monthly), or an hourly wage of at least $45.41.  In addition, a computer software employee must also meet the duties test set forth in California Labor Code Section 515.5, which are also included in all Wage Orders except Orders 14 and 16.

More ...

Assembly Bill 2613 seeks to expand the persons potentially liable to any “person acting on behalf of an employer.” More specifically, liability would attach when an employee is not paid sums owed when due under Labor Code sections 201.3, 204, 204b, 204.1, 204.11, 204.2, 205, and 205.5, and the failure to pay is not the result of “an isolated or unintentional payroll error due to a clerical or inadvertent mistake.” AB 2613 would amend Labor Code section 210 to require an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer to pay a penalty of $200 to each and every affected employee for ...

Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701) provides a “direct contractor” is liable for the wages, benefits and contributions (plus interest) owed by its subcontractor(s), even if the subcontractor has been paid for the work.  A “direct contractor” is defined to mean a contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner; a “subcontractor” is defined as a contractor without a direct contractual relationship with an owner.  The law applies to all private construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018.  

AB 1701 does not, however, provide wage claimants ...

Effective January 1, 2018, California Assembly Bill 168 (AB 168) prohibits asking job applicants about their salary history (including other forms of compensation and benefits), or otherwise seeking this information.  Further, employers may not rely on salary history as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant, or the salary the employer will offer an applicant.  Although the law permits employers to consider salary history if an applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses this information, employers should proceed cautiously based on a ...

On Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge in Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction delaying the U.S. Department of Labor rule that would have dramatically increased the minimum salary threshold to qualify as exempt from overtime on December 1^st.  The rule would have raised the annual salary required for exempt status from $23,660 to $47,476, which was expected to result in millions of employees becoming eligible for overtime pay because their salary would not meet the new threshold.   The judge’s decision stated that the Obama administration overstepped its authority by ...

The Wage Equality Act of 2016 (Senate Bill 1063) expands California’s Equal Pay Act to target race and ethnicity-related wage differentials. This bill picks up where last year’s Equal Pay Act (which bolstered prohibitions on gender-based pay differentials) left off by adding a new Labor Code provision precluding wage differentials based on race or ethnicity.  Under the Wage Equality Act, employers will be required to demonstrate that a reasonably-applied factor accounts for any pay differential between employees of different races or ethnicities for doing substantially ...

In response to the increasing number of cities and counties that have enacted minimum wage ordinances setting wage rates at levels higher than state and federal requirements, last year Assembly Bill 970 was added to the Labor Code allowing the California Labor Commissioner the right to enforce local minimum wage and overtime provisions.  This year the California Legislature looked to enforcement at the local level and passed Senate Bill 1342. Specifically, SB 1342 increases local enforcement to combat wage theft by authorizing cities and counties to issue subpoenas in cases of ...

Senate Bill 501 changes the amount of an employee’s weekly earnings that would be exempt from a wage garnishment order in California. Currently the amount subject to garnishment cannot exceed the lesser of 25% of the employee’s disposable earnings and the amount by which the individual’s disposable earnings for the week exceed 40 times the state minimum wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable. Beginning on July 1, 2016, the maximum amount subject to garnishment will change to the lesser of 25% of the employee’s disposable earnings for the week or 50% of the amount by ...

Effective upon signing, Assembly Bill 1506 amends the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, commonly known as “PAGA”, in a manner that should benefit employers and employees alike and reduce lengthy litigation. Among other things, PAGA permits employees to bring civil actions for violations of California Labor Code section 226(a)(6) and (8), which require an employer to provide its employees with specified information regarding their wages, including the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid and the name and address of the legal entity that is the ...

Senate Bill 588, referred to as the wage theft bill, significantly expands individual liability for wage and hour violations by authorizing the Labor Commissioner to hold a hearing to recover civil penalties for wage and hour violations against not only the employer, but also a person acting on behalf of an employer, which includes an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer. These persons may now be held liable for violating or causing a violation of any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any Wage Order or the Labor Code. SB 588 also makes it ...

For the third year in a row, the California Senate is seeking to increase California's minimum wage with automatic adjustments for inflation. Specifically, Senate Bill 3 proposes to raise minimum wage to $11 per hour on January 1, 2016, $13 per hour on January 1, 2017 and will automatically adjust thereafter commencing on January 1, 2019. The bill has already been approved by the senate and will now proceed to the State Assembly for review. Prior efforts to legislate automatic adjustments of the minimum wage have failed, although Assembly Bill 10 was signed into law after ...

One of the more interesting laws to emerge from the 2014 legislative session was Assembly Bill 1792. AB 1792 amends and adds sections to the Government Code, Unemployment Insurance Code and Welfare and Institutions Code. Specifically, the law requires the State of California to compile information on the use of public assistance programs, including the average cost of state and federally funded benefits provided to each individual receiving benefits. “Public assistance program” is defined specifically as the Medi-Cal program. Beginning in January of 2016, the law requires ...

Continuing in a trend that started in 2013, the California Legislature focused considerable time and effort on expanding liability and increasing penalties under several existing laws for 2015. Assembly Bill 1723 amended Labor Code section 1197.1 by expanding the penalty for the failure to pay employees minimum wage to include penalties under Labor Code section 203 in addition to liquidated damages in the amount of the unpaid wages, recovery of the unpaid wages and pay period violations for each employee of $100.00 for the first pay period and $250.00 per pay period thereafter. AB ...

Most California employers know that they have to reimburse employees for business-related expenses. Indeed, California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that an employer “shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties…” This requirement has led prudent employers to reimburse employees not only for such obvious costs as travel or mileage expenses, but for less obvious expenses such as the cost to dry clean a uniform that cannot be laundered. What California ...

Fine, but make sure that you do so correctly. Many employers prefer to reimburse employees for healthcare insurance premiums rather than hassle with providing coverage under a group healthcare plan. In so doing, these employers assume that this payment is excluded from the employee’s gross income. However, this assumption is both incorrect and potentially expensive.

In light of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined that, unless ACA requirements are satisfied, such reimbursements for individual healthcare ...

Oil prices may be going down, but reimbursement rates are going up. On January 1, 2015, the IRS standard mileage deduction rate increased from 56¢ to 57.5¢ per mile for business miles driven. However, the rate for medical or moving purpose mileage decreased from 23.5¢ to 23¢. The rate for miles driven in service of a charitable organization remained set at 14¢ per mile. The business rate is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The medical and moving rate is based on the variable costs. The charitable rate is based on statute.

Because ...

Finally! The California Supreme Court recently fell in line with the United States Supreme Court on the enforceability of class action waivers in arbitration agreements by upholding their enforceability. Previously, the California Supreme Court had held in Gentry v. Superior Court that class action waivers in employment agreements were invalid in certain circumstances. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court decided the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case, which in effect upheld class action waivers, with the Court reasoning that a state procedure that is incompatible ...

Money, that is. It is a motivation shared by employers and employees alike. It is the reason why employers are in business and why employees work for employers. And it is often the primary reason for a lawsuit.None of this will surprise savvy employers. But what often comes as a surprise to employers is that the plaintiff is not usually the person driving employment litigation. Whether it is a class action or a single plaintiff dispute, as the saying goes, if you “follow the money” more often than not it is the plaintiffs’ counsel that is in command of the lawsuit, from start to finish.

When it’s a service charge. On June 25, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Revenue Ruling 2012-34 which provides guidance to employers and employees on the difference between tips and service charges as well as on certain reporting requirements. The ruling states, among other things, that service charges paid to employees are taxable as regular wages and not as tips. Although the IRS delayed enforcement of Revenue Ruling 2012-34 to allow businesses time to make adjustments to comport with the new guidelines, the IRS will begin enforcement of classifying service ...

A few months ago I posted a blog article that outlined the basic rules on when a terminated or resigning employee must be paid his or her final wages in the State of California (“Payments Upon Termination of Employment: Is Anyone Still Confused?”).  However, while an employer may now understand when an employee must be paid, where and how should the payment take place? Should the payment be mailed to the employee who has abandoned his or her job or is it permissible for the employer to hold the final paycheck until it is contacted by the former employee? Can the final paycheck be delivered ...