Category: Fair Labor Standards Act

Bill 404 To Protect Those That Provide Care



Senate Bill 404 is a proposed amendment to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California’s primary anti-employment discrimination law.  If enacted, SB 404 would add another category to the already lengthy list of protected characteristics under the FEHA – “familial status,” which is currently defined as “an individual who provides medical or supervisory care to a family member.” Neither “medical care” nor “supervisory care” is defined in the Bill, and, given the California Supreme Court’s statement that the FEHA must be liberally interpreted in favor of employees, these phrases may be construed to encompass a broad variety of everyday activities.   Moreover, like the other provisions of the FEHA, this Bill would also apply to people who are associated with others who are providing such care, or who are simply perceived as providing such care – even if they aren’t.

Is Your Commission Plan In Writing?


On January 1, 2013, Labor Code § 2751 took effect and mandated, among other things, that employees receiving commission as part of their regular wage must have their commission structure in writing, signed by the employer.  Additional requirements under this provision of the code including disclosing how commissions will be computed and paid, as well as obtaining a signed “receipt” from the employee acknowledging the disclosure they received.

Moreover, this section of the code adopts the definition of the word “commission” as promulgated in Labor Code § 204.1 which states: “Commission wages are compensation paid to any person for services rendered in the sale of such employer’s property or services and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof.”  This means that the legislature has intended 2751 to apply broadly, to both exempt AND non-exempt employees, and irrespective of how the employer defines the word “commission” (i.e. incentive rewards, bonuses, etc.).

If you’re engaged in a sales job and have no idea how your commission is computed, or have not received the commission structure in writing, chances are that your employer is not in compliance with the law.

Judge Green Lights Bag Check Class Action Against CVS

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Rico indicated he will certify a class of more than 40,000 Caremark CVS Corp. employees who were not compensated for time spent in security inspections/getting their bags checked.

The law in this regard is clear that employees must be compensated for all of the time that they are “subject to the control of the employer.” CVS has had a policy of having their employees clock out and wait near the front of the store for a manager or loss prevention agent to check their bags before they can leave the store. This time that they spent waiting and having their bags checked was not compensated and violates California law. Continue reading “Judge Green Lights Bag Check Class Action Against CVS”

Refusing To Sign A Warning Considered Misconduct!?

The Court of Appeal in Paratransit v. UIAB, tackled a common wrongfully terminated question for employees, can my employer fire me for not signing a written disciplinary notice? According the Court in the Paratransit case, the answer could be yes.

Craig Medeiros, the employee who was fired, was a union member. His negotiated union contract required his employer to obtain the signature of the employee being issued a disciplinary notice. The notices however, must include a disclaimer that states that the employee is only acknowledging receipt of the document. Continue reading “Refusing To Sign A Warning Considered Misconduct!?”

Pregnant Employees May be Entitled to Additional Leave

An employee who was disabled as a result of her pregnancy and had exhausted all leave under California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) and the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) was entitled to additional leave as a reasonable accommodation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Court of Appeal has ruled in a case of first impression. Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., No. B237761 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013). Continue reading “Pregnant Employees May be Entitled to Additional Leave”