Second Division Deems Arbitration Agreements Unconscionable and Executed by Fraud
In a decision recently certified for publication on October 22, 2021, the California Court of Appeals, Second Division, reviewed two versions of arbitration agreements executed between a group of employers and their employees. The decision stems from a class action lawsuit, Yeni Najarro et. al. v. Horizon Personnel Services Inc. et. al., wherein the employees filed eighteen employment related claims against their employers. The employers attempted to hide behind the different versions of arbitration agreements and compel the employees to dispute their claims before an arbitrator which would have prevented the employees from filing a lawsuit in court.
However, the Appellate Court determined that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable as the employee's consent to arbitration was secured by unconscionable terms and fraud in the execution of the agreements. This post will briefly highlight the big picture points of the Appellate Court's decision, and demonstrate how employees can overcome unfair arbitration agreements provided by their employers.
Arbitration Agreement Impact on Employees
We have written before the employers prefer arbitration for various reasons, but arbitration agreements may have a negative impact on employees and disadvantages employees after signing arbitration agreements. It is important to remember that there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power at the time of hiring - with employers tending to hold all the power over employees. Many employers use this advantage by including arbitration clauses that deprive employees of their right to have their day in court - which was the situation in the Najarro case - and restrict employees in many other ways. The Srourian Law Firm and its attorneys have experience overcoming unfair arbitration agreements and securing employee's employment rights to have their day in court.
What makes an Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable?
In the Najarro class action lawsuit, although there was an arbitration agreement between the employers and employees which delegated power to an arbitrator to preside over and resolve disputes between employers and individual employees, the courts typically have the power to review all agreements or contracts for enforceability.
Unconscionability is one argument employees may raise to have an unfair agreement deemed unenforceable. In California, unconscionability is referred to as the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party to a contract, and the contract terms unreasonably favor the other party involved in the contract. Unconscionability can be procedural - meaning that during the negotiation process one party may be oppressed or surprised due to having unequal bargaining power. Unconscionability can also be substantive - meaning the substance of the terms will result in overly harsh results to one party and one-sided favorable results to another party.
Applying the doctrine of unconscionability, the Second Division determined that one version of the arbitration agreement was unfair to employees, and therefore unenforceable, because the arbitration agreement (1) forced employee's to waive their right to file a class action lawsuit for employment related claims, (2) the employers did not countersign the agreement, which is required to demonstrate mutual intent to enter into an agreement, and (3) the employees were not provided a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of the arbitration agreement with their employers. Here, the employees were pressured into signing arbitration agreements that took away their power to file a class action lawsuit in court. Underlying the lawsuit was the fact that the employees had difficulty understanding and speaking the English language which the court later addressed in its discussion of fraud in the execution of agreements.
What is Fraud in the Execution?
One key aspect of the Second Division's ruling in Najarro is the court's discussion of fraud in the execution of arbitration agreements and the implications it may have for employees that speak and or read English as a second, or maybe even third or fourth language. In California, a claim for fraud in the execution is not subject to arbitration where the facts can demonstrate that there was not mutual assent between employer and employee to enter into an agreement. Fraud in the execution of an agreement occurs when an employee signs an agreement but is deceived by the employer as to the nature of the agreement; and, the employee does not fully grasp the terms that he or she is agreeing to. In the event that this happens, the court will review the facts underlying the lawsuit in relation to the contract terms to determine whether or not the agreement is void or unenforceable.
In the Najarro lawsuit, the employees were not proficient at reading Spanish and English, nor were they proficient at speaking English. Additionally, the employers - taking advantage of the obvious language barrier - merely handed the arbitration agreements to the employees and referred to the agreement as being "unimportant". Moreover the employers took advantage of the employees by pressuring them to essentially "take it or leave it" when it came to accepting the offer for employment. The employers conditioned the employees employment on on whether or not the employees signed the arbitration agreement.
Basically, the employees were compelled by the employers to sign the arbitration agreement if they wanted to be employed. The employees were not given a reasonable opportunity to read the arbitration agreements or at least have an attorney interpret the agreement for them so that they could understand exactly what they were agreeing to, and what employment rights were being waived. When a situation like this happens, as was the case in Najarro, the court is likely to deem an agreement void or unenforceable because there is no clear intent or mutual assent that the disadvantaged party - here it was non-English speaking employees that also struggled to read Spanish and English - to mutually enter into an arbitration agreement waving vital employment rights.
Each case will depend on the specific facts, so it is important to consult with an experienced labor law attorney to assess the specifics of your case to determine if your employment rights are being violated by an unconscionable arbitration agreement.
Free Consultation
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including arbitration agreements and filing class action lawsuits, and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law, and may be entitled to compensation as a part of a class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
California Appellate Court Upholds Employee's Calculation of Unpaid Wages
In a decision submitted for official publication on October 14, 2021, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Four upheld a trial court’s decision to enter judgment in favor of a warehouse employee for wage violations claims filed in a lawsuit against his former employer. The trial court awarded the employee $99,394.16, of which $42,792.00 accounted for unpaid overtime wages. The case, Byron Jerry Morales v Factor Surfaces LLC et. al., reaffirms California Labor Code and principles of employment law when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay.
Case Background
Byron Jerry Morales was a warehouse employee employed by Factor Surfaces LLC. The company hired Morales in 2016. Morales performed a variety of duties, vital to the financial success of the company. Morales cleaned and sanitized the warehouse; he accepted shipments of supplies and equipment; he facilitated and personally made deliveries and pick-up of workplace materials; and, he engaged in customer service relations.
In 2018, the employment relationship between Morales and Factor soured, when Factor terminated Morales’s employment, after Morales asked to be compensated for unpaid overtime wages.
In 2019, Morales filed a lawsuit against his former employer, alleging that the company retaliated against him; the company violated California law by failing to maintain and provide employee records and wage statements; the company failed to pay overtime wages, along with meal and rest break compensation; and, for wrongful termination.
The Trial
At trial, Factor Surfaces LLC and its agents Gregory and Bianca Factor, both testified that the company was unable to produce as evidence Morales’s employment records and wage statements as required by statute. The employment records and wage statements would have indicated, at minimum, Morales’s regular rate of pay along with the number of days and hours he worked.
However, the company claimed that the records went “missing” after a truck owned by the company was stolen from inside a gated community. Supposedly, Morales’s employment records were inside the truck, and although the stolen truck was later recovered, the records were not. The company also testified that Morales was not paid commissions for sales.
Morales, however, was able to provide evidence at trial of his regular rate of pay and wage history with his former employer. Prior to March 9, 2018, Morales worked a full-time schedule at his former employer: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. After March 9, 2018, Morales stated that he worked two (2) or three (3) Saturdays per month. Morales estimated that prior to March 9, 2018, he earned eighteen (18) hours of overtime per week, and after March 9, 2018, he earned approximately fourteen (14) hours of overtime per week because he was not working every Saturday.
Morales testified and provided evidence in the lawsuit that his regular rate of pay in 2016 was $120.00/per day, and that he received a three percent (3%) commissions on sales, which at the end of 2017, was reduced to one and a half percent (1.5%). Without explanation, the company cut Morales’s commission on sales to zero (0%). Also, at some point during Morales’s term of employment the company increased his weekly wages to $150.00/per day.
The Trial Decision
The issues of the trial ultimately boiled down to two questions: (1) which side of the lawsuit, Morales or Factor Surfaces, was more credible or believable based on their testimonies and evidence presented at trial; and (2) whether the trial court should accept Morales’s calculation of his regular rate of pay which included unpaid overtime wages and commission sales?
The trial court’s answer to the first question: Morales. In this case, the employee was found to be more credible than the former employer. Morales established that he performed work for the company that was not properly compensated; and, he provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the amount and extent of work he performed. The burden then shifted to Factor Surfaces to provide accurate and complete employee records and wage statements as required by California law, and the employer could not. The best defense the company could raise was the documents were stolen. With that, the trial court accepted Morales’s calculation of his regular rate of pay while employed by Factor Surfaces. In result, the company filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s acceptance of the employee’s calculation of regular rate of pay.
The Appeal
The Court of Appeal reminds us that – under California Labor Code Sec. 510(4) – overtime pay means “any work performed by an employee in one workday, and work performed in excess of forty (40) hours in any one work week, must be compensated at no less than one-half time times the employee’s regular rate of pay.” Generally, commission workers receive compensation for their commission sales based on a different formula under California law.
However, in this case, because the employee was found to be more credible than the former employer; and the employer failed to provide any records as evidence, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court’s acceptance of Morales’s calculation of his regular rate of pay which included unpaid overtime wages and weekly commission sales was proper.
What does this mean?
What this means for employees is that the Court of Appeal is signaling one way to protect job interests against the unfair labor practices of employers. Employees may be able to do this by keeping copies of their wage statements, records of time worked, and work performance. The Court reiterates “where the employer has failed to keep records required by statute, the consequences for such failure should fall on the employer, not the employee. In such a situation, imprecise evidence by the employee can provide a sufficient basis for damages.”
The Court is saying that, even if the employee is not able to provide precise records, if the employee can at least present credible or believable testimony and records of the employee’s wage history and hours worked, it may be sufficient to shift the burden to the employer to prove otherwise; and, if the employer cannot prove otherwise, then it may lead to recovery of commission sales, unpaid overtime wages, and damages in a lawsuit. $25,000.00 of Morales’s award was for emotional distress damages.
Employees should practice saving and cataloguing their pay stubs or weekly paychecks; track missed meal or rest break periods; track duties performed at work and hours worked; and, track the number of wages earned from commission sales. This information could prove to be vital in a lawsuit for damages.
Each case will depend on the specific facts, so it is important to consult with an experienced labor law attorney to assess the specifics of your case to determine if you are owed additional compensation and unpaid overtime wages from your employer.
Free Consultation
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including wage, labor, meal and rest break violations in the workplace, and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law, and may be entitled to compensation as a part of a class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
California Protects Warehouse Employees Against Unfair Labor Practices
The on-going feud between state governments and big tech companies intensified on September 22, 2021 when California Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 701 (A.B. 701), making California the first state to impose regulations on companies that require warehouse distribution center employees to meet unfair productivity quotas. A.B. 701 - the Warehouse Distribution Centers Bill - amends the California Labor Code to include new provisions taking aim at companies like Amazon that implement unfair labor practices that exploit employees in order to fulfill delivery orders. A.B. 701 also prevents job seekers from being discriminated against when applying for or pursuing a different job if the job applicant filed to receive worker’s comp benefits during prior employment.
What is A.B. 701?
Generally, the purpose of California Assembly Bill 701 (A.B. 701) is to protect warehouse distribution center employees against impending job loss for failing to meet employer established productivity quotas. The author of the new law, California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez states, “worker’s aren’t machines. We’re not going to allow a corporation that puts profits over worker’s bodies to set labor standards back decades just for same-day delivery.” The new law will protect both current and former workers employed at a warehouse distribution center.
What is a productivity quota?
A.B. 701 defines quota as a work standard under which an employee is assigned or required to perform at the specified productivity speed or perform a quantified number of tasks, or to handle or produce a quantified amount of material, within a defined time period and under which the employee may suffer an adverse employment action if they fail to complete the performance standard.
Essentially, a quota is created by the employer or company of which the employee is responsible to meet. The quota consists of the number of tasks the employee is expected to complete within a certain amount of time. The problem arises when the quota is unfair, yet employees are still expected to perform tasks to complete the quota, and if the employee cannot do so, then the employee may experience an adverse employment action.
What is an adverse employment action?
In California, an adverse employment action is viewed as any type of retaliatory action taken by an employer that is reasonably likely to have a negative effect on an employee’s job performance, opportunities for a promotion, or ability to seek employment elsewhere. The most common examples of an adverse employment action are job loss or termination, reduced wages, and demotion to a lower employment position or job title.
What changes will happen because of A.B. 701?
Currently, companies like Amazon are not held accountable for providing employees with adequate notice of their productivity quotas and the adverse employment actions that may occur for failing to meet those quotas. A.B. 701 requires companies to provide more transparency to warehouse distribution center employees. For example, the bill provides greater protections to warehouse distribution center employees in the following ways:
- Employers must provide adequate notice to every existing and new employee in writing describing each quota the employee is responsible to meet;
- Employers must provide notice to all employees in writing of any adverse employment actions that may result from failing to meet a quota;
- Employees will not be required to meet a quota that violates the employee’s right to meal and rest or break time, including using the bathroom;
- Employers are prohibited from taking any adverse employment action against an employee for not meeting a quota if the quota violates the employee’s right to meal and rest or break time, including using the bathroom;
- Employees must receive productive time credit towards any quota for actions taken by the employee to comply with California’s health and safety laws for the workplace;
- Employees may receive productive time credit towards any quota during meals and rest or break time if the employee is required to be on call during those times;
- Current and former employees have the right to request a written description of each quota and a copy of the most recent 90 days of the employee’s performance towards meeting the quota if the employee believes the company created a quota that violates the employee’s right to meals and rest or break time.
Another key component of the new law is that employees will have the ability to file a lawsuit for injunctive relief to obtain court ordered compliance with the law against employers and companies. Employees that are successful in the lawsuit for injunctive relief may be awarded suspension of the unfair quota, the court may reverse an unlawful termination of the employee for not meeting a quota that violated the employee’s labor rights, the employer and company may be ordered to cover the employee’s costs and attorney’s fees for filing the lawsuit. Each case will depend on the specific facts, so it is important to consult with an experienced labor law attorney to assess the specifics of your case.
A.B. 701 is scheduled to take effect in California on January 1, 2022.
Free Consultation
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including Warehouse Employee related health and safety violations in the workplace, and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law, and may be entitled to compensation as a part of a class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Appeals Court Gives Delivery Drivers the Green Light to Trial
A recent decision by a federal appeals court is good news for delivery drivers seeking compensation for unpaid wages and unreimbursed expenses. In an important decision dated July 17, 2020, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that Amazon delivery drivers are considered “transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce” even if they never physically cross state lines to complete deliveries.
The decision is important because this means that Amazon delivery drivers may proceed with a class action lawsuit without having to go through private arbitration. Defendant Amazon argued that plaintiffs may only resolve disputes through arbitration, and are prohibited from filing a law suit according to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The appeals court, however, disagreed with Amazon’s argument that the FAA required arbitration in this case because the FAA does not require arbitration for “entire categories of workers in the transportation industry just because those workers might not have physically crossed state lines.”
Amazon unsuccessfully argued that “last-mile delivery workers” who do not always cross state lines when traveling the final legs of the delivery did not “engage in interstate commerce” and therefore must settle claims in arbitration, not court. The court’s decision, however, firmly includes these last-mile delivery drivers as engaging in work “within the flow of interstate commerce.” The key to the decision was whether or not the delivery drivers “engaged in” interstate commerce if they did not actually travel across state lines to deliver goods. According to the appeals court, the drivers were entitled to sue employers for claims of labor law violations and it was not important that they did not actually physically cross a state line in order to make the delivery. This reasoning is based on a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held employees were engaged in interstate commerce even when employees did not actually cross a state line as long as the intrastate portion of their work was part of an overall “interstate journey.” In other words, the court did not want to penalize the drivers for being assigned delivery routes by Amazon that did not require them to cross state lines, but nonetheless was part of interstate delivery of goods.
The class action suit against Amazon was originally filed in 2017 by drivers in Massachusetts who claimed Seattle-based Amazon misclassified delivery drivers as independent contractors. This misclassification allowed Amazon to refuse to provide drivers with vehicles or reimburse for expenses incurred by drivers such as insurance, gas, and mileage. Amazon argued that arbitration was the appropriate and only forum available to plaintiffs because of the FAA. Employers favor arbitration because arbitration usually favors employers, awards are binding and not subject to appeal, and arbitration is generally much less expensive than a trial. Moreover, if an employer loses at trial, often the award includes plaintiff's attorney's fees.
Additionally, Amazon unsuccessfully argued that Washington state law prohibited the class action lawsuit because the employees were bound by a class action waiver that was part of their employment contract. A class action waiver prohibits employees from filing a class action against employers, but the appeals court refused to apply Washington state law. Instead, the court relied on Massachusetts state law, which is considerably more favorable to employees. Under Massachusetts state law, the appeals court held that the class action waiver was “contrary to the commonwealth’s fundamental public policy” and invalid because it was not possible to enforce the arbitration provision independently from the rest of the relevant section of the contract dealing with dispute resolution.
This decision has significant impact on the pending litigation, as well as other class action lawsuits across the country where employees are misclassified by employers in order to violate labor laws and avoid paying certain wages or reimburse expenses, and will greatly assist employees who have had their rights violated by employers.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including unpaid wages and unreimbursed expenses and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as a delivery driver or employee including unpaid wages or unreimbursed expenses, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law, and may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
FAQs on Productivity Quotas: Are they Legal?
Losing your job is always difficult, particularly when you have worked very hard to be a good employee. Recently, some large corporations have been criticized for having unrealistic expectations regarding employee performance, and have fired employees for failing to be sufficiently productive at work. Here are some frequently asked questions that you may find helpful if you have been fired for failing to meet productivity quotas:
What are productivity quotas?
Productivity quotas are efficiency standards that an employer sets for employees. In other words, the employee is required to meet certain goals at work. Job performance and employee evaluations can be based on whether they meet productivity goals. For example, in a manufacturing plant, the productivity quota could require an employee to assemble "X" number of units per hour. Another example of a productivity quote would be for a delivery person to deliver "X" number of packages per shift. Failure to meet these goals would result in a poor performance evaluation.
Productivity quotes are often unilaterally established by employers, and employees have little or no input on what the productivity quotas are or whether they are realistic. As a result, employees feel tremendous pressure and stress to meet these goals to avoid a bad evaluation and possibly termination.
Are productivity quotas against the law?
No. Unfortunately, for the most part, productivity quotas are not against the law because employers have the right to evaluate the efficiency of employees. However, there are many local, state and federal laws that protect employees and productivity quotas do play a role in the larger question of whether an employee is the victim of an unlawful termination. For example, an employee may have a disability that is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation which may include an adjustment to any existing productivity quotas.
Also, failing to meet productivity quotes cannot be a pretext for an unlawful termination based on age, race, disability or protected activities including collective bargaining and whistleblowing. Other factors that must be considered with productivity quotas is whether employees are forced to forgo lawful meal and rest breaks in order to meet goals. In other words, employees are entitled to breaks under the law which includes proper compensation for tasks like clocking in or changing in to uniform. Employers are not allowed to penalize employees by setting productivity goals that encourage or require employees to work through breaks or not receive proper compensation. If you have been fired for failing to meet productivity goals, you should consult with an experienced labor attorney to determine whether the termination was lawful.
Can I be fired for failing to meet productivity quotas?
There is no simple answer to whether you can be legally fired for failing to meet productivity goals. Employers should have several ways to evaluate employee performance, and productivity goals should be one of many factors. However, all employment terminations must be lawful. In other words, if the only factor that leads to losing your job is failure to meet productivity quotas, there may be grounds to challenge that decision. For example, federal labor law requires a safe and secure workplace that is free of hazards. Therefore, employers cannot create a situation where the workplace is hazardous due to productivity quotas that would require employees to sacrifice safety in order to reach the goals out of fear of being fired.
California law offers even stronger protections for employees and requires every employer to have an injury and illness prevention program which must include safety training and safe work practices. Moreover, according to California Labor Code section 6401, employers must “adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe and healthful.” Therefore, unrealistic productivity quotas could threaten the safety and health of employees which employers are required by law to protect. Labor law is complex and whether your have a cause of action depends on the specific facts. You should consult an experienced labor attorney to discuss your case if you have been terminated.
Is California an “at-will” employment state? What does that mean?
Yes. California is an “at-will” state which generally means an employer may fire an employee at any time for any reason without “good cause.” Good cause means a reason for an employer to fire an employee such as insubordination or dishonesty. Therefore, as an at-will employment state, employers in California do not have to have good cause to fire an employee. However, the employee may not be fired for an illegal purpose or in violation of the employee’s rights.
All employees have rights, and employees in California benefit from some of the country’s strongest protections. So, even though California is an at-will state, which seems to allow an employer to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever, including failure to meet productivity quotas, the reality of labor law is much more complex. In most cases, you will need the advice of an experienced labor attorney to assess your case and file a lawsuit if you have been the victim of an unlawful termination.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including termination based on productivity quotas and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as an employee including termination based on productivity quotas, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law and may be entitled to overtime wages, meal breaks and rest breaks; as well as compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
OSHA Issues COVID-19 Workplace Safety Guidelines
Employees must know their rights as businesses around the world continue to adapt to the challenges due to the CoVid-19 pandemic. As social distancing and other safety precautions are put in place, businesses must comply with local, state and federal requirements for maintaining a safe work environment and ensure the good health and safety of employees. Most laws enacted in response to CoVid-19 vary depending on whether a business is considered essential or non-essential. For example, non-essential businesses may not compel non-essential employees to report to work, and it is illegal to retaliate against any non-essential employee who refuses to go to work. Essential workers, however, also have protections that require employers to ensure and maintain a safe workplace.
In March 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued new guidelines as a result of the pandemic to clarify existing federal law that protects employees. The guidelines address the additional health risks posed by CoVid-19. Under the “General Duties Clause” enacted in 1970, OSHA (as part of the Labor Code), requires employers ensure the workplace is free from “recognized hazards” that are likely to result in serious injury or death of employees.
29 U.S. Code § 654 (5)(a)(1): shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.
The new OSHA guidelines, for the most part, provide guidance that follows the advice of public health officials that are already recommended for everyone such as washing hands frequently and maintaining social distancing. While the guidelines are not legally binding, they do outline recommended precautions that employers should take in order to ensure the safety of employees.
The new guidelines address four categories, or controls, for businesses to ensure employee safety: (1) engineering, (2) administrative, (3) safe work practices, and (4) personal protective equipment. The first category, engineering, identifies safety measures to separate employees with physical barriers. Administrative controls include ensuring sick employees stay home, and creating enough space for employees to stay six feet apart. Under safe work practices, OSHA recommends that company policies and practices promote good health such as providing hand sanitizer, sufficient time to wash hands frequently, and having disinfecting products available. Finally, personal protection equipment includes providing masks, gloves and eye protection to reduce the risk of exposure to CoVid-19, and would depend on the type of work and level or risk.
Additional federal, state and local laws may provide additional protection to employees. For example, in Los Angeles County, local law requires social distancing in public as well as wearing non-surgical masks by employees of essential business as well as customers. Businesses that fail to provide employees with personal protective equipment or ensure customers are wearing masks are violating the law.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including OSHA violations and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as an employee including OSHA violations, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law. Employees may be entitled to damages as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Employees Have a Right to be Safe at Work Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
The challenges we are all facing due to COVID-19 have resulted in many changes at home and in the workplace. While everyone must adapt to the rules of social distancing and the mandatory Safer-at-Home restrictions, essential businesses must also ensure their employees are safe at work during this pandemic. Employees of essential businesses continue to provide vital services despite the health risks, and will keep America operating. These front-line workers are important and have rights under California law to ensure their safety, health and well-being.
Under California law, employers must provide “reasonably adequate” safety devices and safeguards to keep the work place “safe and healthful.” Moreover, California Labor Code section 6401 requires “every employer shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.” If your employer does not protect your health and safety, they are violating the law. While this is especially challenging during the current pandemic, employees have the right to be safe in the workplace.
EMPLOYERS MUST PROVIDE MASKS, GLOVES, SOAP AND SANITIZER
Even though the current COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented, given our understanding of the virus and how it is spread, essential workers that have contact with the public must be provided with masks, gloves, soap and sanitizing products. In addition, employees must be given time to properly wash their hands frequently, as recommended by health care organizations. Employers must also ensure that the workplace is clean and regularly sanitized for the protection of employees and customers.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) and most health care organizations, properly washing your hands with soap and water is the most effective way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 as well as other disease.
The need for safeguards in the workplace is particularly important for health care providers and first responders who are more vulnerable simply because they are more likely to be in direct contact with contagious members of the public. Every effort must be made to provide sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) to every front-line worker to ensure their health and safety, and avoid further contagion.
State law also requires employers to reimburse employees for any expenses spent by employees to obtain necessary safety equipment. This also includes the cost of lodging if an employee is required to self-isolate because they live with someone who is considered vulnerable to the virus or has been diagnosed with the virus.
EMPLOYERS SHOULD ACCOMMODATE VULNERABLE EMPLOYEES
Employees who are considered vulnerable to the virus by having a pre-existing medical condition, may request an accommodation to work from home. If the accommodation is reasonable, the employer must accommodate the request or may violate protections granted under California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA). Since California is under a state of emergency due to the virus, employees should know what changes have been made to provide workers with protection during the pandemic.
For example, while employers may ask employees whether they are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, this information is confidential and the employee’s medical condition remains private. Similarly, if a co-worker has tested positive for the virus, or is believed to have the virus, the employer must follow the guidelines established by the local public health department as well as any current state or federal health recommendations. That may include closing the work place, deep cleaning and allowing employees to work remotely. Most importantly, employers cannot reveal the name of the employees that have tested positive or are suspected of having the virus.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including failure to ensure a safe and healthful workplace and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as an employee such as failure to ensure a safe and healthful workplace in California, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law and may be entitled to unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our experienced lawyers for a free consultation.
FAQs on Arbitration
Often a job offer will include an employment contract that you are expected to sign. Understandably, as a prospective employee, you are anxious to be hired, so you may not give much thought to signing the contract. However, every employment contract will be unique, and you must be sure that the terms in the contract reflect the negotiations that lead to the job offer. More importantly, you need to make sure the contract is fair and your rights are protected by consulting with an experienced labor law attorney.
Q: What is arbitration?
A: Arbitration is a type of alternative dispute resolution that handles disputes without going to court. The dispute is decided by one or more neutral arbitrators after the parties present evidence and make arguments in an arbitration hearing. Some hearings also permit questioning witnesses. The rules of arbitration are less formal than a trial, but there are federal and state rules of arbitration that must be followed. Arbitration can be either binding or non-binding. In binding arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision may include an award for damages which is enforceable by law. In non-binding arbitration, the decision is merely “advisory” in nature, and the parties can either accept the decision, or pursue binding arbitration or a trial.
Q: What is an arbitration clause?
A: An arbitration clause is often included in agreements including employment contracts. The primary purpose of an arbitration clause is to require any dispute between the parties pursuant to the contract be settled by arbitration. In other words, if an employee alleges the employer has violated terms of the employment contract, the employee must resolve the dispute through arbitration instead of going to court. The arbitration clause, however, may designate arbitration as either “mandatory” or “voluntary.” Mandatory arbitration requires arbitration, while voluntary arbitration means the parties may chose arbitration by mutual agreement. Most employment contracts include a mandatory arbitration clause because employers generally prefer arbitration. Arbitration clauses can be complicated, and include many terms regarding venue, costs, procedures, scope of disputes, and selection of arbitrators. You should consult with an experienced labor law attorney before signing any arbitration clause to ensure your rights are protected. More importantly, your attorney can identify any unfair terms of the arbitration clause, and employment contract in general, and request modification.
Q: Should I sign an employment contract with an arbitration clause?
A: Whether you agree to an arbitration clause or not will depend on many factors, and you should consult with an experienced labor law attorney before signing any employment contract. You should realize that arbitration clauses, and employment contracts in general, are often written to favor the employer. With that said, your attorney can review the terms of the contract and advocate for your rights. Just as not all employment contracts are the same, arbitration clauses will differ as well. If you are asked to sign an employment contract, be sure to consult with an experienced labor law attorney, despite your eagerness to accept employment. You must protect your rights as an employee and take every step possible to ensure the terms of your employment are fair before signing an employment contract.
Q: Why do employers include arbitration clauses in employment contracts?
A: There are several reasons why employers prefer arbitration rather than a trial. First, arbitration is usually less expensive than a trial. Second, arbitration is considered a private resolution of a dispute between parties, and therefore would not be as public as a trial. Also, an unfavorable ruling against an employer would not be setting precedence for other employees, unlike case law. Third, many arbitration clauses in employment contracts prohibit employees from joining a class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuits are important to challenge wide-spread labor law violations, and employers discourage class actions which could result in significant legal fees, financial liability as well as bad publicity. Finally, because there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power at the time of hiring, many employers use this advantage by including arbitration clauses that deprives employees of their rights to their day in court. This also provides an on-going advantage to the employer who knows that the employee is restricted by the arbitration clause.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including employment contracts and arbitration clauses, and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations due to an unfair employment contract or arbitration clause, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law, and may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Know the Law. Know your Rights.
Most people eagerly await payday in order to pay rent and bills on time, or maybe to splurge a little. Getting a late paycheck, regardless of the reason, is not only frustrating, but it could be against the law. Under California labor laws, employers must pay you on time, or they are violating your rights and breaking the law.
In general, employees must be paid by a certain date depending on whether paychecks are issued every two weeks (bi-weekly) or twice a month (bi-monthly). There are some narrow exceptions that apply to certain types of employees, such as salaried monthly executives, but the vast majority of employees are protected under California Labor Code section 204(a).
California Labor Code § 204(a) (in relevant part)
Labor performed between the 1st and 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month shall be paid for between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and labor performed between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, shall be paid for between the 1st and 10th day of the following month.
For example, if an employee is paid twice a month, the pay period is often divided into the 1st through 15 days of the month; and the 16th through the last day of the month. Under California law, employers must issue paychecks no later than the 26th of the month for the first pay period, and the 10th of the following month for the second pay period.
For employees that are paid every two weeks, or weekly, the law requires employers issue checks within seven calendar days after each pay period. Failure to issue timely paychecks could subject employers to significant penalties.
Also, according to California Labor Code section 204(b)(1), Employees have a right to be paid for overtime by the next regular paycheck. That means if you accrue overtime during a particular pay period, those extra wages must be included in the next paycheck. Again, if your employer fails to pay you overtime wage on time, your rights have been violated and you should seek legal advice.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including failure to receive paychecks on time and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as an employee such as not receiving paychecks on times in California, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law and may be entitled to unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our experienced lawyers for a free consultation.
Know the Law. Know your Rights.
California labor laws provide many protections to employees that often exceed federal labor laws. Therefore, it is important to know the various state laws designed to ensure your rights as an employee are not violated by employers. Fundamentally, labor laws and regulations are highly specific and often difficult to understand since laws are amended, enacted or repealed regularly, so it is important to consult with an experienced labor law attorney to ensure your rights are protected.
Often, employees do not realize that they have the right to timely, accurate wage statements each pay period with nine categories of information included in each wage statement. A wage statement, or pay stub, is the document an employer must provide employees every pay period that explains how the paycheck was calculated.
According to California Labor Code section 226, there are nine categories of information that must be included in every wage statement:
• gross wages
• total hours worked
• piece-rate units earned and any rate if employee is paid on a piece-rate basis
• all deductions from wages
• net wages
• dates of pay period
• employee’s name and the last four digits of social security number
• full name and address of the employer
• applicable hourly rates.
Some requirements are not required for exempt employees such as salaried employees. Additionally, section 246(h) of the California Labor Code requires employers advise employees each pay period of any paid sick leave they have accrued. While this is not specifically required on each wage statement, many employers include this information on wage statements as a matter of convenience. This information is particularly vital to any employee who seeks paid sick leave, which is guaranteed by the California Sick Paid Leave Law.
ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW
California law is clear that employers have a legal obligation to provide accurate wage statements to employees each pay period even if a third-party payroll company used. An employer who fails to comply with the law and violates an employee’s rights may face large fines and penalties, even for minor mistakes. The requirements are strict, and must be followed exactly. For example, the mandatory wage information must be on the face of the wage statement. In other words, the law is not being followed if the employee must find the required wage information on another document besides the wage statement.
In addition to possible fines and penalties, an employee has the right to file a lawsuit against the employer for “knowing and intentional” failure to comply with the law. If successful, an employee who has suffered an injury due to inaccurate or missing wage statements may be entitled to monetary damages.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including failure to provide accurate wage statements and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as an employee such as not receiving accurate wage statements in California, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law and may be entitled to unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our experienced lawyers for a free consultation.