E-mail

faith@eac-oc.com

Contact Info

(714) 794-4253

Resources for California Employers to Track and Confirm Their State and Local Minimum Wage Requirements

Jennifer S. Grock
Jonathan Judge
Atkinson, Anderson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

September 24, 2024

On January 1, 2024, California’s statewide minimum wage rate increased to $16 per hour. Alongside this hike to the minimum wage, the base salary requirement for California employees exempt under the administrative, professional, and executive exemptions increased to an annualized salary of $66,560.
 

While newsworthy, California’s statewide minimum wage is really only a baseline, as many localities in California have passed ordinances which require employers to pay employees a higher minimum wage. Accordingly, California employers must keep track not only of statewide minimum wage requirements, but also of any local measures which may impact their employees’ required rate of pay, and pay the higher of the state or applicable local minimum wage (if any). 

Fortunately, the California Department of Industrial Relations has recently added to its “Minimum Wage Frequently Asked Questions” webpage a link to the UC Berkeley Labor Center’s “Inventory of U.S. City and County Minimum Wage Ordinances” webpage. There, the Labor Center shares a list of California city and county minimum wage rates, which was updated as recently as July 1, 2024.

Employers may review the list of California city and county minimum wage rates for updates, particularly when they expand into new geographical areas of the state, or around January 1 and July 1, when many rates are updated. New or different local minimum wage ordinances may be passed into law at any time.

In addition, California employers should keep in mind that there is a special minimum wage for fast food workers that went into effect on April 1, 2024, and there will soon be a higher health care worker minimum wage as well.

Conclusion

If you have any questions about minimum wage or other employment law requirements, feel free to contact the authors of this EAC Update or your own employment attorney.

 

Reprinted with permission from AALRR

Federal Minimum Salary Increases as of July 1st & January 1st

California Requirements Remain Higher Than Federal Requirements

Every employee in the country is classified by law as either “exempt” or “non-exempt.”  Exempt employees are exempt from wage and hour rules that mandate clocking in and out, rest breaks, meal periods, overtime, etc.  Non-exempt employees are not exempt from those rules. 

In order to qualify as exempt, two factors must be met.  First, the employee must hold a job that the law permits to be classified as exempt.  Second, the employee must earn a guaranteed base salary that meets certain minimum requirements.  Both federal and California state law applies to these rules.  The current requirements are as follows:

  • Current Federal Minimum Salary:        $684 / week ($35,568 / year)
  • Current California Minimum Salary:     $1,280 / week ($66,560 / year)

Because California’s minimum required salary is higher than the federal minimum required salary, employers with employees only in California can generally focus solely on the California rule and ignore the federal rule.

For years, federal regulators have played a game tug-of-war in their attempts to increase the federal minimum salary that must be paid to exempt employees.  At long last, a two-step increase plan has cleared all hurdles and is set to go into effect as follows:

  • July 1st Federal Minimum Salary:         $844 / week ($43,888 / year)
  • January 1st Federal Minimum Salary:   $1,128 / week ($58,656 / year)

Despite these increases, the California minimum salary requirement remains higher than the federal minimum salary requirement. 

What does this mean for California employers?  If you do not have any employees outside of California, these changes do not impact you.  Continue to monitor and comply with all California requirements.  Please note – the California minimum salary requirement increases every January 1stIt is recommended that all employers with exempt employees set a recurring calendar reminder for every December to determine the new minimum salary requirement and make any necessary adjustments.

If you do have employees outside of California and any of those employees are classified as exempt, audit their salaries now and make any necessary changes in order to comply (a) no later than July 1st, (b) no later than January 1st, and (c) every January 1st thereafter.

Federal law also allows for a “Highly Compensated Employee” (HCE) exemption by which employees who earn not less than the designated amount automatically qualify as exempt, whether or not their job qualifies as exempt.  Unfortunately, this rule does not apply to employees in California.  If you do have HCE’s who work outside of California, the rules may apply.  If so, here are the applicable minimum salary requirements for HCE’s under federal law:

  • Current Federal Minimum Salary for HCE:            $107,432 / year
  • July 1st Federal Minimum Salary for HCE:            $132,964 / year
  • January 1st Federal Minimum Salary for HCE:      $151,164 / year

Of course, if you have any questions please contact the authors of the Update or your usual counsel.  

 

Reprinted with permission from Scott & Whitehead.

 

May 1, 2024

Employers may need to update their harassment-prevention policies, procedures, and trainings now that the federal government released long-anticipated guidance on the topic. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace was updated yesterday for the first time in 30 years to adapt existing standards to the modern workplace. Specifically, the agency wants to provide clarity in light of evolving protections for LGBTQ+ employees and the recent uptick in sexual harassment and racial harassment cases. While not governing law, the guidance serves as a useful tool for employers and will surely be referenced by EEOC staff, employment attorneys, and courts. What are the five biggest takeaways for employers, and what next steps should you consider taking now? 

How We Got Here

Workplace harassment claims have become a serious matter for employers, particularly in the last several years. The EEOC first proposed new guidance on workplace harassment in 2017 amidst the #MeToo movement, but the agency never finalized it due to political infighting. This new guidance, released yesterday, is the first guidance on harassment since the 1990s.

Top 5 Takeaways for Employers

  1. Broad Protections for LGBTQ+ Workers: The new guidance makes clear that harassment of LGBTQ+ workers – particularly transgender employees – can be considered a Title VII violation. The EEOC concluded that this was a natural extension of the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that sexual-orientation discrimination and gender identity/transgender discrimination are forms of “sex” discrimination under Title VII. According to the EEOC’s guidance, examples of harassment could include the denial of access to a bathroom consistent with the individual’s gender identity, the intentional and repeated misgendering of an individual, or the harassment of an individual because they do not present in a manner stereotypically associated with their gender.
  2. Workplace Anti-Bias Laws Cover Pregnancy-Related Decisions: The definition of sexual harassment has been broadened to include pregnancy, childbirth, and other “related medical conditions.” According to the EEOC, employees are now also protected against discrimination (including harassment) involving decisions related to pregnancy, such as lactation, contraceptive choices, and the decision to have, or not to have, an abortion. This broad coverage should be read in tandem with the equally broad protections the agency recently applied to pregnancy accommodations.
  3. Clarification on Protection for Religious Expression: While employers are required to accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs pursuant to Title VII, employers also have a duty to protect workers against religiously motivated harassment. Covered employers should engage in the interactive process with an employee who is requesting a religious accommodation. However, according to the EEOC, employers are not required to accommodate religious expression that creates or “reasonably threatens to create” a hostile work environment. “If a religious employee attempts to persuade another employee of the correctness of his beliefs, the conduct is not necessarily objectively hostile,” the guidance says. “If, however, the employee objects to the discussion but the other employee nonetheless continues, a reasonable person in the complainant’s position may find it to be hostile.” In this case, the employer can and should take appropriate corrective action.
  4. Harassment Can Occur Virtually: In the aftermath of COVID-19 and the related increase in remote work and online communication, the guidance notes that harassment can occur virtually. If conduct occurs in the virtual environment and is communicated by email, instant message, videoconference, or other online technology, it can still violate Title VII. The guidance confirms the EEOC’s position that sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory speech communicated via these platforms may be considered harassment.
  5. Guidance for Employers to Update Their Harassment Policies: The new guidance includes resources to assist employers in reviewing and updating their harassment policies to best prevent and address workplace harassment moving forward. The guidance also provides useful key points to guide employers in improving the effectiveness of their anti-harassment policies, complaint and investigation processes, and trainings.

What’s Next? Legal Challenges Expected

After the EEOC initially proposed the updates back in September 2023, a coalition of 20 states said they would take legal action if the agency finalized certain aspects of the guidance. For instance, the group said the EEOC exceeded its authority by interpreting Bostock’s employment protections based on gender-identity too broadly. In response, the EEOC said, “The proposed guidance did not attempt to – nor does the final guidance attempt to — impose new legal obligations on employers with respect to any aspect of workplace harassment law, including gender identity discrimination. Nor does the guidance exceed the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock.” 

Based on the EEOC’s response and yesterday’s finalized guidance, we expect the coalition to prepare a legal challenge for the courts to have the final say on the fate of this new guidance.

What Should Employers Do?

While legal challenges may impact the EEOC’s enforcement guidance, the update took effect immediately. You should thus review your policies in light of the changes. Consider taking the following steps to stay compliant and promote a positive workplace culture: 

  • Review the Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.
  • Make sure your policies are compliant with modern standards. The EEOC’s updated guidance highlights certain best practices for employers. For example, you should have a policy that clearly indicates that you have “zero tolerance” for harassment. You should also have a reporting policy that encourages employees to immediately report their concerns about potential harassment. Once policies are in place, you should ensure they are consistently enforced.
  • Train your managers to address issues and avoid common mistakes. The guidance is a reminder to ensure your supervisors are trained properly to identify and prevent workplace harassment. While some states (such as California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New York, and Washington) require sexual harassment training to be completed by employees, it is recommended that all employers provide this type of training regularly, regardless of what their state may or may not require. It’s also a good idea to review and update the training material every year.
  • Make sure all complaints are properly investigated and that appropriate corrective action is taken when improper conduct is found. It’s more important than ever for employers to follow clear processes with properly trained professionals in investigating and acting upon complaints or other concerns of potential harassment.

Conclusion

These can be challenging times for employers, but this is also a great opportunity to propel your organization further. You can take this opportunity to reexamine your organizational culture can ensure you are providing a safe and professional working environment for everyone in your service.

If you have questions about the guidance, feel free to reach out to your employment law attorney or the authors of this Update.  

Reprinted with permission from Fisher Phillips.

SCOTUS Says Forced Lateral Job Transfers Can Support Discrimination Claims in Some Circumstances:
Key Employer Takeaways

Update Provided By

J. Randall Coffey, Leanna Lane Coyle, Edward F. Harold

Fisher Phillips

An employer’s decision to transfer an employee to a lateral job – with no change in pay or benefits – may violate federal civil rights law in some situations if it’s based on discriminatory reasons. According to a SCOTUS ruling today, an employee who claims a mandatory job transfer is unlawfully biased – in this case based on sex – must show they suffered some harm regarding an identifiable term or condition of employment. But the harm does not have to be significant. As we predicted earlier this year, even though the Court sided with the employee in this case, the ruling is narrow and leaves the door open for further clarification in the future. Here’s what you need to know about the ruling and what it means for employers.

Dispute Over Level of Harm Employee Needed to Show

Sex Discrimination Claim: In the Muldrow case, a female police sergeant brought a sex discrimination suit claiming she was transferred to a lateral position in a different division because new leadership wanted to hire a man for her current role.

Nuances of the Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. But what if an employee was allegedly forced to accept a lateral transfer – with the same pay and benefits – for a discriminatory reason? Is it still unlawful, even if the employee fails to show the transfer caused them a significant disadvantage?

The Facts: Sergeant Muldrow was transferred from the Intelligence Division to a role in the Fifth District when a new commander made a number of personnel changes, including transferring 22 officers (17 of whom were male) into various other positions.

Muldrow alleged the transfer constituted an adverse employment action that could sustain a Title VII claim because her Fifth District work was more administrative and less prestigious than that of the Intelligence Division, and more akin to basic entry level work. Her prior position carried perks, including the opportunity to work in plain clothes, keep a strict Monday-to-Friday schedule, and access an unmarked FBI vehicle.

Appellate Court Sided with Employer: The district court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the police department, finding that Title VII bars only adverse employment actions that result in a materially significant disadvantage for the employee. Specifically, her pay and rank remained the same, she was given a supervisory role, she was responsible for investigating important crimes such as homicides, and her time in the Fifth District did not harm her future career prospects. As the 8th Circuit said, “an employee’s reassignment, absent proof of harm resulting from that reassignment, is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action.”

Several other appellate courts, however, have found that a forced lateral transfer is an adverse action even if the employee fails to show that the move caused any additional injury.

The Question for SCOTUS to Answer: Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage? Notably, the employee posed a broader question in her petition to the Supreme Court, and her attorney spent considerable time at oral argument discussing the ways the transfer actually caused her harm. But the Justices limited the question before the Court to the narrow issue above – which led us to correctly predict that they would similarly issue a narrow ruling.

SCOTUS Says Employee Must Show “Some” Harm

“To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment,” Justice Kagan wrote for the Court. “What the transferee does not have to show is that the harm incurred was ‘significant’ or otherwise exceeded some heightened bar.”

Requiring the harm to be “significant” would add to the statute and impose a new requirement under Title VII — which “can make a real difference for complaining transferees,” Kagan wrote. The Court noted that a transfer is not usually forced when it leaves the employee better off.

In this case, the employee’s claims (if properly preserved and supported) “meet that test with room to spare,” the Court said, highlighting the following facts:

  • She was moved from a plainclothes job in a prestigious specialized division;
  • She was moved to a uniformed job supervising one district’s patrol officers, in which she was less involved in high visibility matters and primarily performed administrative work;
  • Her schedule became less regular, often requiring her to work weekends; and
  • She lost her take-home car.

When considering these points, the Court said, it does not matter that her rank and pay remained the same or that she still could advance to other jobs. Thus, SCOTUS vacated the 8th Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

You should note that the Court did not go so far as to hold that all mandatory lateral transfers are adverse actions – instead, transferees must always show at least some harmbeyond the harm of being transferred for allegedly discriminatory reasons. This is good news for employers, since the SCOTUS decision leaves some mechanism for weeding out complaints that truly don’t show sufficient injury to justify bringing a lawsuit. But we might continue to see federal court disagreements on precisely what “some” harm means — and we anticipate seeing a wealth of cases at the district court and appeals court level on this issue in the coming years.

What Should Employers Do?

The Muldrow case serves as a reminder to employers to ensure your policies and practices align with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. Consider taking the following steps in light of the ruling:

  • Review your HR policies for compliance with equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws, including your processes for handling day-to-day workplace matters, such as work assignments, meeting attendance, travel decisions, performance issues, discipline and performance improvement plans, and other actions that are short of terminations or demotions.
  • Update your EEO training for managers and supervisors to cover the nuances of lateral transfers and other actions that might support bias claims.
  • Stay informed on court decisions in the aftermath of the Muldrow case to see how this issue continues to evolve and impact workplace compliance.

Conclusion

We will continue to monitor workplace law developments and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you subscribe to Fisher Phillips’ Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. 

If you have questions, contact your employment law attorney or the authors of this FAQ.

Reprinted with permission from Fisher Phillips.

California’s Latest Mandate:
Workplace Violence Prevention Plan and Training

Update provided by
Michael J. Rossiter
Scott & Whitehead

April 25, 2024

California just prescribed another big dose of employment regulations in the workplace, this time in the form of requiring virtually all California employers to implement a comprehensive Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP). The July 1, 2024 compliance deadline is rapidly approaching, so consider this your wake-up call! Although there may be some businesses exempt from this law, those exemptions are very few.

The law defines “workplace violence” very broadly – essentially any violent act or threat occurring in the workplace. This includes the obvious examples, like physical assaults, weapon threats, and verbal/written attacks. But it goes further, labeling even comments that cause psychological stress or trauma as workplace violence, even if no other injury results. Thus, the required WVPP must cover a whole host of issues, not just incidents of what would typically be considered workplace violence.

So, what is actually required by this law?  First, the WVPP must include a comprehensive written policythat is easily accessible by staff, whether it is combined with the required Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP), or it is a stand-alone plan. Developing the WVPP requires thoughtful customization based on each employer’s specific needs. For example, some employers may be situated in a high-crime area or near a business that keeps a lot of cash on hand, while others may be more likely to be dealing with troubled individuals. The plan must designate responsible individuals to lead its implementation and include various specific procedures, such as involving employees in the development and implementation of the plan.

But wait, there’s more! This law isn’t messing around – it also requires WVPP training of all employees when the plan is first rolled out, as well as annually.  Additional training is also required when new or previously unrecognized workplace violence hazards are identified, or when there are other changes to the plan.

Employers are also required to record every workplace violence incident in a “violence incident log,” which must include very specific information on each incident. Those records must be retained for at least five years.

Cal/OSHA recently published a model Workplace Violence Prevention Plan. The model plan provides a starting point with examples and suggested language, but it is far from a readily usable product. As noted above, the law requires employers to develop a plan that considers the unique risks that each employer faces. Potential exposure to workplace violence varies considerably by workplace, industry and geographical location. Therefore, the model plan should only be used as a starting point.

If you have questions, contact your employment law attorney or the authors of this Update.

Reprinted with permission from Scott & Whitehead