December 4, 2008
Effective Jan. 1, 2009, the standard mileage reimbursement rates for car be reduced from the current 58.5 cents to 55 cents per mile for business miles driven. Recent DLSE and court decisions make it clear that employers can comply with their expense reimbursement requirements (see Labor Code Section 2802) by following the IRS guidelines.
Employer’s policies can be updated when the IRS updates its regulations, or the employer can simply say they will reimburse mileage at the current IRS rates. Reimbursing employees at a lower rate can subject the employer to a claim that the employer did not fully reimburse the employee for expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. Failing to fully reimburse employees for work-related expenses may require the employer to pay interest and attorneys’ fees incurred in recovering the underpaid expense.
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | 
New Laws, Policies & Best Practices, Wage & Hour | Tagged: 2802, expense, indemnification, indemnify, IRS rate, labor code, mileage | 
Permalink
Posted by Phil
October 3, 2008
On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 10 which modifies Labor Code Section 515.5 – the statute that exempts computer software field employees from the overtime requirements of California law. Last year the “Governator” signed SB 929 which reduced the hourly rate computer workers must earn in order to be exempt from the overtime regulations of California law from $49.77 per hour to $36.00 per hour. Prior to passing AB 10, employers could pay computer software workers $36.00 per hour or the salary equivalent: $74,880.00. The new law, which is effective immediately, requires employers to either pay the $36.00 per hour rate or a salary of $75,000.00 per year, in no less than monthly payments of $6,250.00 per month.
I’m not sure why the Governor would sign a bill that requires employers to pay computer software workers $220.00 more per year than previously required. As with the hourly rate, the Labor Commissioner will continue to increase the minimum salary for computer workers each year based on the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | 
Hiring, New Laws | Tagged: Computer, exempt, exemption, hourly rate, New Laws, overtime, salary | 
Permalink
Posted by Phil
May 31, 2008
On May 28th, the California Assembly approved AB 2716 which will require all California employers to provide paid sick leave to every worker. The bill passed on a partisan basis by a vote of 43-25. No Republicans supported the bill. This bill will now be sent to the Senate.
- Businesses of 10 employees or more would have to provide up to nine days of sick leave per year.
- Smaller providers would have to provide up to five days per year.
- Full-time and part-time workers would earn sick days at the rate of one hour per 30 hours worked.
- The benefit could be used after 90 days of employment.
- Employers can cap the annual sick leave
- The sick leave can be used for diagnosis, care or treatment of health conditions of the employee or the employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault.
- Employers would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against any employee who requests paid sick days and would have to comply with specified posting requirements.
- Employees who do not receive the required sick days could bring an action for enforcement including attorneys’ fees.
The text of the bill can be reviewed at www.leginfo.ca.gov.
People interested in this bill should contact their senators.
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | 
Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate, Medical Leaves of Absence, New Laws, Wage & Hour | 
Permalink
Posted by Phil
February 28, 2008
A couple of times each year the Department of Labor issues opinion letters interpreting statutes and regulations under their jurisdiction. On February 14, 2008, the DOL provided two new opinions regarding interpretations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers in California are required to comply with the FLSA and California law and courts often use DOL interpretations even when deciding cases under California law.
In FLSA2008-1NA, the DOL was asked whether the minimum salary of $455 per week under the FLSA could be prorated to reflect the part-time status of an employee. The DOL rejected the idea that the minimum weekly salary could be reduced. Courts interpreting similar provisions under California law would likely agree with the DOL’s conclusion. California employer should be aware, however, that employees qualifying for California’s Administrative, Professional or Executive exemptions must receive a weekly salary of at least $640 (two times California’s current minimum wage).
In FLSA2008-2NA, an employer asked if it was using an acceptable method of tracking hours worked when employees performed mandatory on-line training while at home. The employer’s time records showed the type of training taken, the completion date, start and end times and contained a place for the employee’s and manager’s signature. The DOL pointed out that “No particular method of keeping required records is prescribed, provided that the relevant information [i.e., hours worked each day] is maintained and preserved.
The opinion letter serves as a good reminder that employers are required to compensate non-exempt employees for time spent in mandatory training, even if the training occurs at home. Accurate records of hours worked by non-exempt employees must be maintained and preserved.
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | New Laws, Policies & Best Practices, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Phil
February 28, 2008
Last month we let you know that the President signed amending the Family Medical Leave Act regarding injured members of the armed forces (see Bush Expands Family Medical Leave Act).
This month the U.S. Department of Labor issued an insert for the current FMLA poster. The insert provides important information regarding the new law that became effective on January 28, 2008. As a reminder, the new law permits a “spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin” to take up to 26 workweeks of leave to care for a “member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the National Guard or Reserves, who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a serious injury or illness.”
Until the final regulations are approved, employers are required to act in good faith in providing the new leave. The new poster can be downloaded here ( New FMLA Insert) or from the DOL’s website.
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | Medical Leaves of Absence, New Laws | Permalink
Posted by Phil
January 29, 2008
On January 28,2008, President Bush signed HR 4986, section 585, of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 into law. The new law amends the Family Medical Leave Act regarding injured members of the armed forces and is effective immediately.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows an employee to take FMLA leave for “any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency operation.”
According to the Department of Labor, this provision of the NDAA is not effective until the Secretary of Labor issues final regulations defining “any qualifying exigency.”
The Department of Labor is in the process of preparing the required regulations. In the meantime, employers are encouraged to provide leaves of absences to employees who need time off work due to a family members’ call to duty.
The NDAA will likely be in addition to any rights an employee would have under California’s newly enacted AB 392 (see California Employers Must Allow Leave For Spouses of Armed Forces).
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | Medical Leaves of Absence, New Laws | Permalink
Posted by Phil
January 18, 2008
Effective January 1, 2008, California employers are required to notify their employees, either by hand or through the U.S. mail that the employees may be eligible for the Federal Earned Tax Credit (EITC). This notification must be given one week before, one week after, or at the same time that the employer provides a W-2 form, 1099 or similar wage statement.
To comply, employers must mail directly to employee or hand the notice to the employee personally. It is no longer enough to post notice of the EITC tax credit on an employee bulletin board or sending notice through the office mail.
Sample notices are available at the Internal Revenue Service website.
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | New Laws | Permalink
Posted by Phil
November 16, 2007
You may recall that the federal government previously indicated that certain forms of identification were no longer sufficient to establish a person’s eligibility to work in the United States. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officially announced that a new Form I-9 is now available. Several of the “List A” documents are no longer listed as acceptable proof of identity and eligibility. Employers should no longer use the following documents:
- Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or Form N-570)
- Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570)
- The Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I0151)
- The Reentry Permit (Form I-327); and
- The Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571)
The new Form I-9 can be obtained at http://www.uscis.gov/I-9
A revised Handbook for Employers (M-274) with instructions for completing the Form I-9 can be downloaded at http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-w74.pdf
Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
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.
Leave a Comment » | Hiring, New Laws, Policies & Best Practices | Tagged: Alien Registration, California, East Bay, Hiring, I-9, Illegal Immigrant, Immigration, San Francisco, San Jose, Silicon Valley, South Bay | Permalink
Posted by Phil
October 10, 2007
On October 9, 2007, the “Governorator” signed AB 392 (introduced by Ted Lieu, D-Torrance) which requires employers with 25 or more employees to allow spouses of military members 10 days of unpaid leave when the military member is on leave from deployment. AB 392 adds Section 395.10 to the Military and Veterans Code and is effectively immediately.
A qualified employee is one who works 20 or more hours per week and is the spouse of a deployed member of the armed forces, national guard or reserve. The employee must notify the employer within 2 business days of receiving official notice that the serving spouse will be on leave from deployment and that the employee would like to take the leave. The employee must also submit documentation certifying that the employees spouse will be on leave during the unpaid leave.
Employers with 25 or more employees should modify their policies to reflect the availability of this new leave and should prepare blank certification forms that the employee can fill out requesting the leave.
If you require assistance modifying your handbook or preparing the required certification, contact an attorney familiar with the new leave requirements.
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.
Leave a Comment » | New Laws, Policies & Best Practices | Permalink
Posted by Phil
August 1, 2007
All civil cases must be filed in court within applicable statutes of limitation. If a plaintiff does not timely file his/her claim, the court will dismiss the matter. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a gender discrimination claim involving unequal pay between men and women begins to accrue when the plaintiff receives his or her first unequal pay. See Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Employers hailed this as a major windfall and plaintiff’s attorneys criticized the decision because many plaintiffs do not even know they are being paid less than other similarly qualified individuals for a long time, and therefore lose their right to bring an unfair pay claim.
The legislature decided to weigh in on the issue. On July 31st the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2831, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, which reinstates the “paycheck accrual rule” in effect for employment discrimination cases prior to the Ledbetter decision. The bill passed with 225 voting for the bill and 199 against it. A companion bill, S. 1843, the Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2007, was introduced in the Senate on July 20, 2007.
If the Senate passes S. 1843, the bill will move on to the President for approval. The White House has threatened to veto the bill. If the bill becomes law, each time an employee receives a discriminatory paycheck, s/he is subject to another instance of discrimination, effectively restarting the applicable statute of limitations.
Regardless of the applicable statute of limitations, it is never wise to pay different rates for the same work. It is acceptable to pay higher wages to persons with more skills even though the person is performing the same job as somebody with fewer skills. This may, however, cause the lower paid worker to believe s/he is the victim of discrimination. Keep in mind; California employers cannot require employees to keep their pay rates confidential.
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.
Leave a Comment » | Discrimination, Harassment or Retaliation, New Laws | Permalink
Posted by Phil
