Author Archives: Jeanine DeBacker

Love is in the air! Is that good?

file000502395545

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Chances are that at least a few of the readers of this entry are having an office romance – or had one – or have employees “so involved.” I read in the Dallas Business Journal this week that 59% percent of respondents to a recent survey by Vault.com had participated in an on-the-job romance, and 63% of those who had been involved with a co-worker said they would be willing to do so again.

So, is this bad, or good? Anyone who has sat through California’s mandatory sexual harassment prevention training for supervisors knows that office romances can become very, very bad for the employer. It would seem then, that this article should admonish employers to prohibit office relationships, right? Classic lawyer response:  It depends.

It can be a good practice to prohibit relationships between people who have a reporting relationship to try to avoid the classic “if you sleep with me, great things will happen for you here at the company” claims. But some employees bristle at being told what they can or cannot do on their personal time. And some employers don’t want to take that position, either.

I also don’t often suggest a ban for peer relationships. Your employees spend a huge portion of their lives at work. Now that they’re no longer in high school or college, where are they supposed to meet potential partners? Often, it is at work. And having a policy that prohibits office romances doesn’t mean they won’t happen, it just means the parties will try to hide it. And it’s usually the hidden office romances that are the problem.

The key then, is to create and publicize policies that help everyone know what the rules are and how all employees are protected from harassment.

For example, when an employer learns of a relationship, I often recommend that the employees involved sign a “love contract.” The purpose of the document is for each employee to separately affirm that the relationship is consensual. The document also reminds employees what is expected of them in the workplace. Basically, this means clear instructions that no part of their relationship should be apparent in the workplace — good (touching) or bad (arguing). Finally, the employees are reminded, in writing, of the company’s anti-harassment policy.

While such a policy can’t guarantee that an employer won’t face a harassment lawsuit after an office romance goes sour, the process of having the employees sign the love contract may help reduce or minimize some risks.

This is one of those topics that can quickly become a long article, rather than a blog entry – each workplace is unique and the employer may have different views on how it wants to approach the office romance question. At a minimum, employers should create policies and train employees to follow the policies.

All of the employment law partners at McPharlin Sprinkles & Thomas LLP conduct effective, interactive and actually enjoyable harassment prevention training programs that satisfy California’s AB 1825/Govt Code § 12950.1. The training must be conducted every two years. Please contact us if you’d like to schedule one!

I’ll be speaking at HR West – Join me!

Button_FINAL_A_1I’ll be presenting at HR West 2013 in April! My topic is “Conducting an Employee Relations Self Audit”. HR West is the largest gathering of HR professionals in Northern California — bringing together more than 600 practitioners for unparalleled networking and excellent education. Join me at the conference! Visit http://www.hrwest.org for complete details.

HR West brings you…

• World-renowned keynotes: Gautum Mukunda, Paul Alofs, Shari Harley
• Over 90 concurrent sessions
• Up to 17.25 recertification credits toward your HR certification
• Executive education led by Cort Worthington, Haas School of Business
• Pre-conference HR Hack. Put your ‘hacker’ mind to work on HR issues
• Award-winning HR certification courses the weekend before

I look forward to seeing you there.

So there’s free speech and then there’s Extra Special Free Speech!

file0001719225336Another case that has provoked interest in audiences for my 2013 Employment Law Updates is Ralph’s Grocery Co. v. UFCW Union Local 8. In this case, the California Supreme Court held that labor unions can picket on private property.

In Ralph’s, a Sacramento-area warehouse grocery store employed workers not represented by a labor union. UFCW Union Local 8 began picketing the store’s only entrance to encourage people not to shop at the store. Ralph’s asked the union to stop and it refused. Ralph’s told the police that the union was trespassing on private property and asked the police to stop the picketing. The police refused to do so without a court order. Ralph’s sought a court order and the end result is this case.

The reason the case is so interesting is that it gives labor union speech more protection than other speech – such as picketing to object to genetically modified foods, or to ask for donations to support a cause.

Before this case, labor unions already had a special exemption under California’s trespass prohibitions for lawful union activities. Union agents have a right to access private property if union members are on-site and working pursuant to a valid collective bargaining agreement or other union agreement for that site. Agents have a right to come onto the property, police the union agreement, prepare steward’s reports, and conduct workplace safety inspections. This exception to the general trespass rule arises, however, only if there is a valid union agreement in place.

In Ralph’s, the Court expanded union rights on private property. The Court agreed that the area in front of the store was not a “public forum” (a public area where free speech is usually protected) and there was no labor agreement in place. Usually, this would mean that the union would not be entitled to the constitutional free speech protection. But the Court held that the activity was entitled protection under California labor laws that do not allow a court to enjoin peaceful labor picketing.

A lower court found that these labor laws made union speech “more protected speech” than other speech – about your fundraising efforts, about your church, about girl scout cookies – which seems to be against the very nature of the free speech and equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. But the California Supreme Court found that labor-related speech can be afforded extra protection without violating the U.S. Constitution. Based on this ruling, a labor union may “peacefully” picket on private property without the owner’s permission. But get permission to sell those cookies.

Can a job duty be “essential” if the employee rarely has to do it? Yes!

file000114214574

I’ve presented a few “2013 Employment Law Updates” this month, and wanted to share with you some of the cases and rules that audiences have been most interested in talking about. This first article is to remind employers of the importance of accurate job descriptions.

Earlier this month, a California Appeals Court held that job duties that an employee does not regularly perform can still be essential to the position.  This means that if an employee cannot perform a rarely-needed, but still essential, function of his job, his employer does not need to accommodate him by excusing performance of that essential function.

In Lui v. City and County of San Francisco, a veteran San Francisco police officer (Lui) suffered a heart attack and could no longer perform physically strenuous work.

The job description for a police officer, even one performing administrative work, includes physically strenuous tasks, such as pursuing fleeing subjects and making forcible arrests.

Since Lui could not perform the physically strenuous tasks of chasing after suspects, or working in physically strenuous conditions, he could not perform as a police officer.  The Police Department offered to transfer him to a vacant “non-sworn officer” position, but Lui declined and retired. He then filed suit alleging disability discrimination.  Among other claims, he argued that in an administrative position, it was not really essential that he be able to perform the strenuous duties.

Under state and federal disability discrimination laws, an employer may terminate an employee whose disability makes him unable to perform the essential duties of his job, even with reasonable accommodations. To determine whether an employer’s claim that certain job duties are “essential functions,” a court may take into account factors such as the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent performing the functions, the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the functions, the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, work experiences of past employees, and the current work experiences of employees in similar jobs.

In Lui, the Court disagreed with Lui and found that the requirement that police officers working in administrative positions to be able to perform physically strenuous duties was an accurate reflection of essential functions of the position. The Court noted that the City had shown that the number of officers available for duty in the streets had substantially decreased. In addition, the City demonstrated that all of its sworn officers, including those in administrative positions, must be able to respond to large-scale, infrequent emergencies such as demonstrations, earthquakes and mass celebrations (Go Giants! Go 49ers!). Based on these factors, the Court found that the ability to perform all the duties of a police officer, including the ability to engage in strenuous tasks such as making arrests, pursuing suspects and responding to emergencies, are essential for all police officer positions. Lui could not perform the strenuous activities required of a police officer, so the Department was not required to accommodate him by relieving him from those duties.

While the facts and circumstances in Lui are unique, this case helps employers understand what makes a function “essential” to a job. The case should also serve as a reminder for every employer to regularly review the essential functions of each position and confirm the accuracy of the related job description.   To explain to the Court what the Police Department had determined were essential functions of the police officer position, the City produced the job description,  which stated that the ability to perform the physically strenuous activities applied to officers on the beat as well as on a desk.

The value of a well-crafted, accurate job description cannot be underestimated when resolving a wide variety of employment issues, including accommodation of employees, performance assessments, and wage and hour classification questions.

 

San Jose’s $10 Minimum Wage Takes Effect March 11, 2013

As I mentioned in a previous post, San Jose voters approved a new minimum wage of $10.00 per hour for work performed within the City of San Jose. The election was certified yesterday by San Jose’s City Council and the new rule takes effect 90 days later.

The only exceptions to the minimum wage ordinance will be for employers who don’t have a facility within San José, or are not subject to the San José business tax. It also won’t apply to employees who work less than two hours a week within the city.

Covered employers will need to post a notice about the minimum wage alongside the other labor law postings you surely already have up. The city will provide the notices that will explain the wage rates and employee rights. Employers will also be required to maintain payroll records for a period of four years.

San Jose’s minimum wage will be enforced on a complaint basis, just as it is at the state level.

Here’s a link to the city’s minimum wage website: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=3491

California Legal Update – Upcoming Live Presentation!

On January 16, 2013, I will present a two-hour 2013 California employment law update to my colleagues at CVHRMA (Central Valley Human Resource Management Association). The program will start at 11:15 a.m. at the SOS Club in Modesto.  HRCI credits are pending.

Please join us!

Here’s the link for more information and to RSVP:

http://cvhrma.shrm.org/events/2013/01/2013-annual-legislative-review

Attention Bay Area Employers — San Jose Voters Approve $10 Minimum Wage

San Jose joins four other cities –  the Bay Area’s own San Francisco, along with Washington D.C., and Santa Fe and Albuquerque, N.M. –that have set their own minimum wage.  San Jose voters raised the city’s hourly minimum wage to $10 — $2 above the statewide minimum (and $2.75 above the federal rate).   Employers must pay the highest of the local, state or federal wage.

Under the new rule, employers must pay their employees a minimum wage of $10.00 per hour for work performed within the City of San Jose. The new minimum wage rate will be effective 90 days after certification of the results of this election –I’ll update this entry when that date is certain.  The City must also adjust the wage each year beginning January 1, 2014 based on increases in a specified Consumer Price Index.

The new law will apply to most employers in San Jose.  The basic exceptions are employers that (1) do not “maintain a facility” in the City of San Jose and (2) are exempt from the Business License Tax  under the Municipal Code. The minimum wage requirement would not apply to a person who works less than two hours per week.  And if you employ workers under a Santa Clara County welfare-to-work program, other exceptions may apply.

Covered employers must post the minimum wage rates, notify employees of the minimum wage rates, and maintain certain payroll records.  The Code will prohibit retaliation or discrimination against any person seeking to enforce the rights provided by the ordinance. The City will administer and enforce the law including, investigating possible violations, issuing administrative citations and compliance orders, and filing a lawsuit in court. Remedies include back wages, penalties, equitable relief, and – the tail that wags the dog – payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Any person harmed by a violation of the minimum wage requirement, or any member of the public, may sue in court to enforce the requirement.

Dear Employees: Vote for Our Candidate, or Else . . . ?

In the news this week was a story that candidate Mitt Romney suggested to small-business owners that they might want to encourage their employees to vote for him.

Here in California, I generally caution all employers against suggesting a position on a candidate or a proposition.  The reason is that while employers are free to express their opinions, they cannot demote, suspend, or terminate an employee for lawful conduct, during nonworking hours, away from the employer’s premises.  “Lawful conduct” includes voting in an election – for your candidate or their candidate.  If an employee is disciplined or terminated shortly after an election in which the employer took a strong, public position with employees, the employer may have given the former employee the basis for a lawsuit.

California law also bars termination of employees for engaging in political activities, becoming political candidates, or following or not following a particular course or line of political action, as long as it’s not advocacy of violent revolution.

And remember, California employees can take protected time off of work, if necessary, to vote in a statewide election.

Trick or Treat, Part 2 – More on California’s New Employment Laws

In my last post, I talked about the “noisier” new laws that California employers need to be prepared for at the start of the year.   Here are some others to keep in mind – and a few of the noisiest bills that didn’t make the cut:

Wage Statements.  Along with everything else you need to do to get ready for 2013, make sure that your payroll department or service is complying with California’s rules for wage statements.  Last year, a court found that if some information was missing from a wage statement, it wasn’t that big of a deal – the employee wasn’t really “injured” and a penalty wasn’t appropriate.  Under the new law, an employee is definitely injured if the wage statement is incorrect.  So, make sure that an employee can “promptly and easily” determine from the wage statement the gross wages earned during the pay period, the deductions taken, the employer’s name and address, and identifying information of the employee (name, last four digits of the SSN or other ID number).

Salaries for Nonexempt Workers.   If you have a contract with a nonexempt employee to pay her a salary or fixed amount for “all hours worked,” that amount will be used to determine the base or regular rate for overtime pay, no matter what the agreement says about an overtime rate.

Protected Status for Breastfeeding Employees.  The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)  now specifically states that employers can’t discriminate against employees based on their breastfeeding status.  This was already the law, but now FEHA states that  the term “sex” also includes breastfeeding or medical conditions related to breastfeeding.

Written Commission Agreements.  This is a reminder about a law signed last year with a delayed effective date.  By January 1, 2013, all employers who pay California employees on a commission basis must have written, signed commission agreements.  The agreement must set forth the method by which commissions are computed and paid and must be signed by both the employer and employee.  This is a great opportunity to define when a commission is actually “earned,” since when it is earned it becomes a wage that cannot be forfeited.

What bills got “stuck on Capitol hill” (or California’s version of that)? There are three big ones.

AB 1450 would have prohibited discrimination in hiring based on an applicant’s unemployed status – in other words, no “help wanted” ads that require the applicant be currently employed.   Governor Brown vetoed the bill, saying it would cause unnecessary confusion.

AB 889 would have required the state to create overtime, meal and rest break, and other working condition rules for domestic workers like nannies, elder care providers and maids.  The governor vetoed the bill, saying that the issue needs more study.

AB 2039 got stuck in Committee.   The Bill would have expanded the California Family Rights Act by  (1) permitting an employee to take protected leave to care for his independent adult child suffering from a serious health condition, (2) expanding the definition of parent to include a “parent-in-law”, and (3) permitting an employee to also take leave to care for a seriously ill grandparent, sibling, grandchild, or domestic partner.

There are a lot of other new laws.  California’s State Senate and Assembly introduced 1,899 bills this year. 996 bills were sent to Governor Brown, who signed 876 and vetoed 120. I’ve talked about less than 10.  If you were hoping to read about a new employment law that I didn’t talk about, let me know!  Email me at jdebacker@mstpartners.com

Trick or Treat! New Laws for California Employers (some of them)

Coming soon . . . Well . . .not really soon – but on January 1, 2013!  While it is not even Halloween, California employers need to be aware of some new rules that will take effect in a few short months.

There are more, of course, but below I briefly discuss the ones creating the most noise. By “noise” I mean the ones talked  about on KCBS, or NPR, on the internet and in the break room. These are the ones that your employees know about and they expect demand that you comply:

Social Media Passwords.  If you have completely ignored the advice of almost every lawyer I know  and have required your employees and applicants to turn over their social media passwords, now you really need to stop.  Starting January 1, 2013, an employer can’t require or request an employee or applicant for his or her username or password to access personal social media.  There are exceptions.  One is if the employer thinks the disclosure is relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct or illegal acts by an employee.  Another is if the employer is using the information to access an electronic device the employer issued.  The exceptions should not be utilized without consulting with your lawyer.

Religious Accommodation.  The vague rules governing religious accommodation in employment were modified.  California employees are protected from discrimination based on “religion,” “religious observance,” and “religious belief” and a new law clarifies that these protections include religious dress and grooming practices.  Employees are protected in their wearing of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, and artifacts.  The new law also specifically forbids segregating an employee from the public (or other employees) as a reasonable accommodation to his or her religious dress or grooming.

For religious matters, employers have historically had the ability to assert that some accommodations could not be made as they were an undue burden.  That somewhat vague standard has been refined so that it is similar to the “undue burden” standard that guides us in disability accommodation:  to claim that an accommodation would be an undue burden, an employer must demonstrate significant difficulty or expense.

Personnel Files.  Employers must review their personnel file maintenance and inspection procedures.  A new bill eliminates conflicting interpretations of the rules regarding current and former employees’ rights to inspect and copy their files.  The bill also places additional administrative requirements on employers.

I’ll talk about the other new laws in later posts so you can be ready for the New Year.  First, though, I’m going to pick out my Halloween costume.