San Francisco Voters Approve Paid Sick Leave Changes

On June 7th, 2016, San Francisco voters approved paid sick leave changes. The approved amendments alter existing law in San Francisco and become operative January 1, 2017. The delay offers employers time to come to terms with the changes and adapt their policies accordingly.

A Few of the Changes Coming With Amendments Approved on June 7th, 2016:

The Definition of Parent: “Parent” has a wider definition that now includes a person who stands in loco parentis when an employee was a minor child and biological, foster, stepparents (or guardians) of an employee’s spouse or registered domestic partner.

Timing: Employees hired on or after January 1, 2017 accrue leave when their employment starts. They cannot use it until their 90th day of employment with the company.

Advanced Leave and Frontloading: Employers can “frontload” the amount of sick leave accrued over the year. They can offer employees a lump sum of sick leave at the beginning of the year’s employment, the calendar year, or any other designated 12-month period of their choice. Frontloading in this way is treated as an advance on leave that will be accrued throughout the year time period. According to the amendment this does not prevent the employer from advancing leave to an employee at other times at their own discretion or limit the amount of leave an employer may advance an employee. An advance of leave must be in line with the employer’s own written policy or put in writing if no written policy exists.

Wage Statements: Effective January 1, 2017, an employer required to provide written notice regarding available California paid sick leave must (on the same notice) provide the amount of available San Francisco paid sick leave or PTO (paid time off) offered in lieu of sick leave.

These are just a few of the coming changes. San Francisco employers who are worried about the changes to employment law and how it will affect their company’s policies and procedures should contact an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible in order to ensure compliance in time for the January 1, 2017 effective date. For additional information on what constitutes compliance in the workplace, please contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Voters Approve Changes to Paid Sick Leave in San Diego

June 7th, 2016, voters in San Diego made a new law that comes with a virtually immediate effective date. This new law will require area employers to move forward with efforts at compliance immediately in order to avoid being in violation of employment law.

The ordinance was originally approved in August 18, 2014. It was scheduled to become operative on April 1, 2015. One month after its approval, petitions were filed by opponents to suspend the law. The City Council voted to submit the matter to voters during the June 7, 2016 election and in so doing, allowed voters to demonstrate that they approved. The law will not apply retroactively, and will not be operational until 10 calendar days after the council adoption of a resolution that declares the election’s results (unless a separate, earlier date is designated in the resolution itself).

The San Diego law is applicable to all employers and their covered employees. A covered employee is one that performs at least two hours of work within the San Diego city boundaries for an employer for one or more calendar weeks in the year, is entitled to state minimum wage or is a participant in a State of California Welfare-to-Work Program. Exceptions are in place for those paid under a special license at below minimum wage, those working for publicly subsidized summer programs or other short-term youth work programs, student employees, program counselors, camp counselors, and independent contractors.

For additional information regarding the application of sick leave and minimum wage laws, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Investigates Ralph’s/Kroger and Stanford University Data Breach

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are currently investigating recent reports of data breaches involving Ralph’s/Kroger and Stanford University. The breach occurred at the big-three credit bureau Equifax, Inc. (NYSE:EFX) and affects both current and former employees of grocery retailer The Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR) and Stanford University.

Kroger Co. is a grocery retailer that does business through a chain of popular grocery stores including QFC, Fred Meyer and Ralphs. Kroger Co. notified employees about the data breach in a letter sent out May 5, 2016 that advised them of the situation. It noted that there was an apparent data breach perpetrated by unknown individuals. These unknown individuals apparently accessed the company’s [Equifax’s] W-2 Express website through the use of default log-in information that was based on a combination of Social Security numbers (SSN) and birth dates.

The W-2Express service is a service provided by Equifax to larger employers like Kroger Co. in order to provide electronic access to employee W-2 forms through the Equifax website. The site database currently has more than 431,000 current and former Kroger employees registered. Data accessed on the site included W2 forms (listing SSNs, addressed, and salaries).

As pointed out by Dailey, the spokesman for Kroger, the popular grocery store chain conglomerate is not the only company to rely on Equifax for electronic access to employee W2 information; nor are they the only company to rely on a combination of SSN and birth date to access the data. Dailey even surmised that it could be the standard setup Equifax relies on for the system.

One month previous to the Kroger/Equifax data breach, Stanford University notified 3,500 of their current and former employees of a similar problem when their data was accessed for purposes of identity theft through the W-2Express database run by Equifax. Northwestern University had a similar issue with 300 employees’ salary and tax data files being accessed through Equifax’s W-2Express portal as well. W-2 data is particularly valuable to thieves interested in identity theft because it contains a large portion of the information they need to request fraudulent tax refunds.

If you have concerns regarding a potential breach of your personal information and you need to discuss your rights with an experienced attorney, please contact us at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We are a leader in our field, experienced and knowledgeable in the representation of employees and consumers who have become victims of data breaches and other labor code violations. Visit our site or contact us directly for more information about how we obtained over $1.3 billion in awards through the course of our long and successful track record in the industry.

Drivers’ Employment Status Leaves Uber Being Sued…Again!

Uber is being sued again. The question of the Uber drivers’ employment status has opened the class action floodgates. Within two weeks of the settlement of $100 million for class action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that sought driver reclassification from independent contractors to employees, Uber is fielding two new cases against their company.

Following the California and Massachusetts case resolution, similar nationwide class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Uber drivers in both Florida and Illinois courts. The drivers (plaintiffs) allege that Uber, a San Francisco company, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The new suits seek unpaid overtime wages and work-related expenses on behalf of drivers.

The class action suit that was filed in Illinois takes the familiar allegations to a new level by attempting to recover tips that drivers earned which they allege the company stole from them or caused them to lose through Uber policies and communications.

Legal representation for the Illinois class action lawsuit indicated that the settlement with California and Massachusetts drivers was an obvious attempt by Uber to band aid the situation when it called for much more drastic methods. Many drivers who work using the Uber service do so as a means of supporting themselves and their families. They need the protection of wage and hour laws and overtime pay requirements, just as much as the rest of the workers in the nation.

Uber responded to the new legal activity with a statement indicating that 90% of their drivers work with Uber because they enjoy being their own boss and that the reclassification of drivers from independent contractors as employees would take that away from them. They would no longer have the flexibility that the status of independent contractor affords. Uber “employees” would have designated shifts, a fixed hourly wage that would limit their earnings, and prohibitions would keep them from driving for additional ride-sharing apps.

If you have questions about the misclassification of workers or if you are an independent contractor and have questions about misclassification of employees, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

California Supreme Court Says Employers Should Provide a Seat

The California Supreme Court recently found that workers whose jobs can be done at least in part while sitting, should be forced to stand by their employer. Many employees will agree that fulfilling a job while standing can take its toll – particularly when discussing long term employment. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding suitable seating cases will allow employees to literally take a load off by requiring employers to give their workers chairs.

Bowlin, a member of the class action lawsuit against CVS, cited long term health issues due to standing (including varicose veins, etc.) The class action suitable seating lawsuit against CVS, popular pharmacy chain, is one of dozens filed throughout California in the last several years. All cite allegations against employers that require their employees to stand. The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, clarifying labor law in a way that will make it fairly difficult for employers to deny their workers with a chair on the job.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan explained more regarding what employment situations fall into this category: when an employee spends a large part of the workday in a single spot completing job duties that can be done while sitting down (even if other job duties need to be completed in a standing position).

The “totality of the circumstances” determines whether or not a worker is entitled to have a seat on the job. This totality of circumstances consists of: whether a job duty can be completed from a sitting position, whether the seated employee would disrupt job performance, and the physical layout of the workplace and its suitability for seating. Having said that, the court also stated that employers should not design workspaces to “further a preference for standing” and that, in fact, employers should consider whether or not the workspace could be reasonably rearranged in order to accommodate a chair.

This clarification of employment law is expected to affect almost every industry across California. Employers will no longer be able to legally require employees to stand on the job all day in a fixed spot if the tasks required for the job can be completed while the employee is seated.

If you have questions regarding how this clarification of employment law will affect your workplace, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Employment Law History: California Increases Minimum Wage

California is making history again, but this time the history will be recorded in the legal treatises studied by employment law attorneys. When the governor signed Senate Bill 3, California became the first state in the nation to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022. This increase will provide six million California residents with increased earnings.

Many cite this increase as a big step in the fight for gender justice as six out of every ten minimum wage workers in the state are female (with women of color being disproportionately represented in the group). 23% of minimum wage employees in the nation are women of color. In comparison, women of color only represent 16% of the American workforce as a whole. More than 1/3 of California’s minimum wage employees also have children under their care for which they need to provide financial support.

The numbers regarding the minimum wage worker demographic in California made Senate Bill 3 a lead bill in the 2016 Stronger California campaign that many have heard discussed. The campaign was chaired by Equal Rights Advocates with top advocacy coalitions acting as co-lead. It has become known as a historic bid to ensure that California’s women and communities as a whole will enjoy economic security. This 2016 Stronger California campaign also enjoyed a celebratory victory in 2015 when the California Fair Pay Act was passed, creating the strongest equal pay law in the United States.

Many California minimum wage workers see the increase as a tremendous help that will drastically alleviate financial problems associated with low income. Today’s minimum wage workers tend to worry check-to-check, work multiple jobs, and stress about having enough to cover the bare necessities. This makes Senate Bill 3 very popular amongst this group. They see it as a positive move in the right direction and hope that the positive movement will continue. There’s still more work to be done in order to ensure economic security. The Stronger California campaign also works toward policies and budget changes to address issues with: poverty, accessibility of child care, promotion of fair pay and job opportunities, and family friendly employment.

If you have questions about California’s Senate Bill 3 or the 2016 Stronger California campaign, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik. 

Chipotle Employee Claims of “Sexually Charged Atmosphere” Result in Lawsuit

A former Chipotle employee, Ariana Castaneda, filed a lawsuit against Chipotle claiming that the managers at the Woodland Hills store where she was employed created a “sexually charged atmosphere” and behaved inappropriately in the workplace, harassing her regularly. Castaneda claims that her Chipotle managers intentionally ordered her uniform shirt too small repeatedly. She worked for Chipotle from December 2013 through February 10th, when she was fired. She was employed as a lead kitchen worker at the restaurant on Canoga Avenue.

Sexual Harassment: harassment in the workplace (or in any professional or social situation) that involves the making of unwanted sexual advances, obscene remarks, obscene gestures, etc.

Discrimination: unjustly treating or treating prejudicially different categories or types of people. It is most commonly referenced in relation to negative treatment in the workplace due to race, age, religion or sex.

Workplace Retaliation: action on the part of co-workers, supervisors or employers to make an individual in the workplace afraid to complain, stand up for their rights or seek legal recourse. Retaliation is often confused with harassment and creating a hostile workplace or environment, but it is specifically aimed at those who have information or situational knowledge that others do not want reported.

Wrongful Termination: when an employee’s employment or contractual agreement for work is terminated by their employer under circumstances where the termination breaches terms agreed on by contract, terms of employment or by law.

Castaneda’s lawsuit also claims that she was not the only one being sexually harassed. She states that the four managers on site sexually harassed other female workers at the southern California Chipotle location and that they even used the security cameras to spy on female customers that they through were attractive. She seeks unspecified damages on allegations including: discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

The plaintiff named Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. along with the four managers in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit. She claims that her position at the restaurant required her to wear a certain uniform, but that her black uniform shirt was purposely ordered too small by the managers. Castaneda, when she complained about the shirt being too small and requesting a larger size be ordered was asked by a manager if it was because her [breasts] were too big. While another shirt was ordered, it was also too small. Castaneda also alleges that one of the Chipotle managers would forcibly hug her and also touch her underneath her shirt when his hands were cold from holding ice or cold drinks, etc. She also cited inappropriate comments managers made about other female employees of a sexual nature, mocking comments made to her personally due to a negative remark that was made on the popular review website, Yelp.

If you are suffering from sexual harassment in the work place or fear that you were wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik so we can help you.