Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue an original driver’s license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States is authorized under federal law if he or she meets all other qualifications for licensure and provides satisfactory proof to the department of his or her identity and California residency.  AB 1660, signed by Governor Brown, makes it a violation of the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) for an employer or other covered entity to discriminate against an individual because he or she holds or presents a driver’s license issued under these provisions or to require a person to present a driver’s license, except in specific situations.

Effective January 1, 2015, FEHA’s definition of “National origin” discrimination will include, but is not limited to, discrimination on the basis of possessing a driver’s license granted under Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code.  The new laws do not alter an employer’s rights or obligations under Section 1324a of Title 8 of the United States Code regarding obtaining documentation evidencing identity and authorization for employment. An action taken by an employer that is required by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324a) is not a violation of law.

Driver’s license information obtained by an employer must be treated as private and confidential, is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and can not be disclosed to any unauthorized person or used for any purpose other than to establish identity and authorization to drive.

HR professionals and persons involved in the hiring process need to ensure they do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of possessing a driver’s license obtained under these provisions.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Governor Brown signed AB 1443 and AB 2053 amending California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  AB 1443 expands FEHA’s anti-harassment protection to unpaid interns.  AB 2053 requires employers to add an anti-bullying module to their sexual harassment prevention training.  Employers and employees (and now volunteers) need to be mindful of the new protections and requirements.

Protection for Unpaid Interns and Volunteers

Existing law protects employees and applicants from unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.   AB 1443 expands FEHA’s protections to persons in unpaid internships or other volunteer positions.  The law does not make it lawful to employ unpaid interns, and the Labor Commissioner and the Department of Labor have taken strong positions that make it very difficult to use unpaid interns.  Regardless of whether the intern or volunteer is required to be paid as an employee, effective January 1, 2015, employers and employees may not discriminate or harass unpaid interns and volunteers in violation of FEHA.

Employers should communicate to its employees that unpaid interns and volunteers are afforded the same rights to a harassment-free workplace as other employees.

Anti-Bullying Training

Employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide sexual harassment prevention training to supervisory employees every two years.  AB 2053 requires the training include a module regarding “prevention of abusive conduct.”  The law does not actually prohibit abusive conduct, unless such conduct otherwise violates FEHA, but it does require employers to train supervisory employees regarding conduct “that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.”

AB 2053 instructs, “Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious.”

While abusive conduct unrelated to a protected category may not be illegal (yet), an employer could theoretically be cited for failing to train supervisors regarding such abusive conduct.  There is no indication that an employee could sue an employer for a failure to provide the requisite training, but the failure to provide the training, or a violation of a company’s anti-bullying policy, may certainly be evidence of a hostile work environment in the right case.

Employers should ensure their next sexual harassment prevention training includes an anti-bullying module.  Employers may also want to consider updating their handbooks to ensure they have a policy prohibiting “abusive conduct.”

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

UPDATE:  Governor Brown has announced he will sign AB 1522 today.  This means that effective July 1, 2015, any employee who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days. Unless otherwise exempt from the law, California employees will accrue paid sick days “at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked.” Employees can use the accrued paid sick days “beginning on the 90th day of employment, after which day the employee may use paid sick days as they are accrued.” Unused accrued paid sick days carry over to the following year of employment. An employer may “limit an employee’s use of paid sick days to 24 hours or three days in each year of employment.”

Employers doing business in California should revise their handbooks to reflect the new laws.

Last week AB 1522 made it one step closer to becoming law. Hailed as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, this bill does more than just provide for mandatory sick leave for employees. It also contains significant penalties for failure to comply with the law, prohibits employers from retaliating against individuals for engaging in certain protected conduct, and mandates new record-keeping requirements.

The new law will apply to almost all employers. Unlike some bills, there is no distinction between small employers and larger employers that can more easily absorb the additional costs. The only employees exempt from the proposed law are employees with collective bargaining agreements that provide for similar benefits and employees working under the In-Home Support Services program.

Effective July 15, 2015, employers must allow employees to accrue up to 3 days of paid time off to be used for their own illness or a family-member’s illness each year. The sick leave begins to accrue after 30 days of employment and must carry over to the following year. Employers can cap the paid sick leave to a maximum of 6 days, but employees must be allowed to use sick leave in increments not to exceed 2 hours. Employers can limit an employee to using no more than 3 sick days per year.

Unwary employers may not realize that this new law will require employers to track the hours worked by salaried employees who are otherwise exempt from California’s overtime laws. The paid sick leave law will apply to exempt and non-exempt employees. The bill requires employers to track the hours worked by all employees (including exempt employees) and the sick leave taken, and to report those hours on the employee pay stubs or a separate written statement with each pay period. This means employers may need to require exempt employees to start reporting hours worked. Alternatively, an employer could allow the paid sick leave to immediately accrue and forego the time tracking for exempt employees, but the employer must still report the available sick time to the employee each pay period.

Employees paid on a piece-rate, commission basis, or paid with different hourly rates, must be paid the average effective hourly rate, not including overtime premium pay, based on the employee’s earnings over the 90 days preceding the time off.

Employers may not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend or in any other manner discriminate against an employee for using accrued sick leave, or who complains to the Labor Commissioner or participates in an investigation regarding a violation of the new paid sick leave law. There is a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if an employer takes action against an employee within 30 days of the employee opposing any policy or practice prohibited by the statute.

The Labor Commissioner can issue penalties for various violations of the new statute, including treble damages when an employer fails to provide the paid time off. Employees terminated in violation of the law are entitled to reinstatement and back pay.

Given the fact that Governor Brown pushed for the bill, I suspect the governor will soon sign the bill into law. If passed, employers will need to modify handbooks, provide new notices to all employees regarding the new paid sick leave, and post new posters identifying the employee’s rights and employer’s obligations.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Caregivers typically work with clients who, as a result of age or disability, cannot completely care for themselves.  The work ranges from providing companionship to assisting someone with all their activities of daily living, such as feed, dressing, bathing, etc.  A client with Alzheimer’s or dementia can be particularly difficult depending on how the condition effects the client.  Sometimes, Alzheimer’s clients can put themselves and others in danger.  What happens if the caregiver is injured as a result of the client’s actions?

California and other jurisdictions previously held that Alzheimer’s patients are not liable for injuries to caregivers in institutional settings. In a recent case, Gregory v. Scott, the court had to determine whether a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease are liable for injuries they inflict on health care workers hired to care for them at home.  The court noted that agitation and physical aggression are common late-stage symptoms of the disease,  and injuries to caregivers are not unusual.  Because the caregiver was employed specifically to assist a client who suffered from Alzheimer’s and the caregiver knew of the client’s propensity for aggressive behavior, the court applied the rule that “those hired to manage a hazardous condition may not sue their clients for injuries caused by the very risks they were retained to confront.”  The court reasoned that if liability were imposed for caregiver injuries in private homes, but not in hospitals or nursing homes, the incentive for families to institutionalize Alzheimer’s sufferers would increase. 

The court was quick to point out that its holding “does not preclude liability in situations where caregivers are not warned of a known risk, where defendants otherwise increase the level of risk beyond that inherent in providing care, or where the cause of injury is unrelated to the symptoms of the disease.”  Additionally, the caregiver was covered under California’s Workers’ Compensation program, but the caregiver could not sue the patient, or his family, in court.

As an aside, the court pointed out that the number of Californians afflicted with Alzheimer’s can only be expected to grow in coming years, and encouraged the Legislature to focus its attention on the problems associated with Alzheimer’s caregiving.

If you employ persons to provide care to Alzheimer’s patients, it is important to educate your employees so they understand the risks inherent in the position, and to provide them the tools so they can safely care for the client.  If you are a caregiver, it is equally important to understand how to care for persons with Alzheimer’s and how to protect yourself, your client and others.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

 

The New York Times ran an blog article regarding an interview with Select Home Care regarding ways some employers are considering to survive recently enacted and currently pending changes regarding in-home care.  The implementation of AB241 requiring overtime for caregivers in California and soon-to-be-imposed federal regulations requiring overtime for caregivers throughout the nation have employers scrambling to consider how they can keep in-home care affordable and profitable.

The article suggests three alternatives employers are considering:

  1. Raise rates to cover the increased costs, which will mean fewer people will be able to afford in-home care.  Raising the costs will not increase the profit margins, but will result in fewer clients which means companies will have to do more with less.  Companies could hire more workers so the employees each work less hours, but that will reduce the employee’s income and require more managers to oversee the work.  This doesn’t result in more money for the workers, but could help keep the cost to the client down.
  2. Switch employees to independent contractors.  The article makes it seem like this is a viable option, but I have serious doubts this will be an effective solution.  Particularly in California where there are hefty fines for willfully misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor, and given the broad definition of “employer,” under AB241, I don’t recommend this course of action in most cases.
  3. Change the business model to a referral agency.  Referral agencies do not employ the workers, but can still help families locate and hire quality workers.  This could lower the costs for the families because they are not having to pay the profit margins for the caregivers, but it comes with its own sets of risks.  Most likely, the family will become the employer, which means the family needs to understand and comply with the myriad of laws impacting employers and employees.  This can be a daunting concern.

The article quotes a few other industry professionals, and most seem to agree that the first option (raising prices to cover the costs) is the safest route.  I agree.  Hiring more caregivers, each working fewer hours, will help keep the costs down, but can impact the continuity of care.  This is particularly important for clients with Alzheimer’s or dementia.  Instead of having one worker working a 24-hour shift, you’ll end up with two to four workers working shorter shifts.  Financially this is the best option.  I don’t know if this will be the best option for providing quality care to the elderly and disabled.

Governor Brown (CA-D) has taken the position that the best way to deal with the increasing costs is to limit the number of hours the employees work.  That is why his budget proposal does not allow caregivers under the state’s In-Home Support Services program to work more than 40 hours per week.  Of course, Governor Brown hasn’t indicated how the clients will care for themselves during the remaining 128 hours of the week.

There is one last assumption in the article that bears addressing.  All of the sources seem to imply that they can deduct up to 8 hours of sleep time for 24-hour shifts.  Because the California Supreme Court granted review of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. in the fall of 2013, we cannot guarantee that an employer can deduct for sleep time.  While the federal regulations allow employers to deduct for sleep time, the issue has not been decided in California.  Employers in California that deduct for sleep time may run the risk of having to go back several years to pay for the uncompensated hours of work.

The New York Times blog promises to do a follow-up with Select Home Care to check on their progress.  If you, or someone you know, uses or provides in-home care, you should speak with a knowledgeable employment attorney to understand the rights and obligations imposed by the law.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Possibly not. An employer is obligated to pay an employee for all hours worked. Most Wage Orders in California define “hours worked” as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

Several federal court cases have held that “suffered or permitted to work” means only work that is performed “with the knowledge of the employer.” For example, in Forrester v. Roth’s I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc. (9th Cir. 1981) 646 F.2d 413, the court held that “where an employer has no knowledge that an employee is engaging in overtime work and that employee fails to notify the employer or deliberately prevents the employer from acquiring knowledge of the overtime work, the employer’s failure to pay for the overtime hours is not a violation of §207” Id. at 414. “An employer must have an opportunity to comply with the provisions of the FLSA.”

The courts point out that an employer cannot escape responsibility by negligently maintaining required records or by turning its back on a situation, but if the employee “prevents the employer” from acquiring knowledge of the uncompensated overtime, the employer has not “suffered or permitted” the employee to work in violation of the FLSA.

In May 2014, a California Court of Appeal applied this rule to claims under the California Labor Code. See, Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2014) 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 874. California courts often look to federal law in interpreting state wage and hour claims. Although the California Supreme Court implicitly endorsed the federal interpretation of hours worked in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (200) 22 Cal.4th 575, 585, the specific question presented in Jong was not addressed. At least one federal court decision (White v. Starbucks Corp (N.D.Cal. 2007) 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1083) applied the “no knowledge” rule to a California wage claim, but California courts are not required to follow federal interpretation of state laws. To my knowledge, Jong represents the first instance in which a California court specifically held that if an employer does not know an employee worked overtime, the employer is not liable for the unpaid overtime compensation.

There are a number of key facts that allowed the court to conclude the employer had no knowledge of the off-the-clock hours. The plaintiff testified that he was aware that it was Kaiser’s policy to pay for all hours worked and to pay for all overtime hours employees recorded, even if an employee should or could have obtained pre-approval before working the overtime but failed to do so. The plaintiff also testified that he was familiar with the applicable time keeping rules and that he knew how to use the timekeeping system. The plaintiff also signed a document confirming he knew employees were not supposed to work off-the-clock. The nail in the coffin was the fact that the plaintiff testified he did not know whether anyone in Kaiser management was aware he was performing off-the-clock work. The two other named plaintiffs in the case had discussions with supervisors about working off the clock, and the court allowed those cases to proceed to trial.

Jong emphasizes the importance of having policies that prohibit off-the-clock work and require employees to record all hours worked. The case also confirms the importance of ensuring the employer knows about all hours worked. If an employee is going to bring a claim for unpaid wages, the employee needs to ensure that a management employee knows the employee is working off-the-clock.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area and work for an employer with 50 or more full time employees, the answer will soon be yes.  Unfortunately, many employers have not heard about this new requirement and may be out of compliance.

According to the Bay Area Quality Management District, “Transportation is the largest source of air pollution in the [San Francisco] Bay Area, and commute travel accounts for nearly half of total motor vehicle travel on an average weekday.”  In order to help combat air pollution and commuter traffic, in 2012 the California legislature passed SB 1339.  SB 1339 authorized the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit
program to promote the use of alternative commute modes such as transit, ridesharing, bicycling, and walking.

Unbeknownst to many in the Bay Area, the Air District and MTC adopted regulations that require employers with 50 or more full-time employees in the San Francisco Bay Area to provide commuter benefits to its employees.  Employers must offer one of the following commuter benefits:

  • Allow employees to exclude their transit or vanpooling costs from taxable income;
  • Provide a transit or vanpool subsidy to reduce or cover employees’ monthly transit/vanpool costs;
  • Provide a low-cost or free shuttle, vanpool or bus service, operated by or for the employer; or
  • Provide an alternative commuter benefit that would be as effective as the other options in reducing drive-alone commuter trips (and/or vehicle emissions).

It appears the only no- (or at least low-) cost option is to allow employees to exclude their transit or vanpooling costs from taxable income.  This option requires the employer to set up a section 132 plan allowing the employee to make a pre-tax payment for commute costs (similar to an HSA or Flexible Spending Account for health benefits).  Employers will likely incur some administration costs to set up and maintain the 132 plan.  Employers can check with their existing payroll companies about setting up a commuter benefits plan.

To comply with the Program, employers must select one (or more) of four commuter benefit options, notify employees about how to take advantage of the benefit, and register with the Program  by September 30, 2014.  Employers can contact the Air District at commuterbenefits@baaqmd.gov for questions or comments.

Many employers do not even know they will be required to offer these benefits.  Employers should not wait until the last minute to choose an option, as it may take time to set up whichever option the employer chooses.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 424 other followers