Labor & Employment Law Blog

Given the current state of the economy, many employers are considering reductions in work hours and potential layoffs.  As businesses consider taking action to save money and prevent potential closure, they must do so carefully in order to manage and reduce risk of future litigation related to its actions.  This blog discusses the appropriate steps that a business must take when conducting a reduction in force (“RIF”).

Recent mass layoffs by tech companies, such as Twitter and Meta, have made headlines.  The massive layoff by Twitter on November 4, 2022 has already resulted in a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.  The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide 60-day advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs, allowing employees and their families with transition time to seek alternate employment or skills training.

Due to a cost-of-living increase required by the State’s minimum wage law, effective January 1, 2023, California’s minimum wage will increase from $15.00 to $15.50 per hour for all employers, regardless of their number of employees.

On December 28, 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) issued a regulation under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. § 31101, et seq.) that preempted California’s meal and rest break rules.  In doing so, the FMCSA decided that California may no longer enforce its meal and rest break laws with respect to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California passed the “Right to Recall” law, which requires employers in the building services and hospitality industries to offer laid-off employees an opportunity to be rehired before hiring a new employee to fill the position.  Now that most businesses and companies are ramping back up and returning to work, employers covered by the Right to Recall law must ensure compliance with California’s recall requirements or face steep penalties. 

Seventeen years ago, in 2004, the California Legislature enacted the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).  Appropriately dubbed a “bounty hunter” law, PAGA authorizes any current or former “aggrieved” employee of a California employer to file suit to seek statutory penalties for essentially any violation of the California Labor Code together with attorney’s fees, hence the incentive for plaintiff attorneys to bring such cases.  Specifically, under PAGA a current or former employee who is “aggrieved” by a violation of the California Labor Code can seek in addition to damages and liquidated damages, civil penalties on the employee’s behalf and on behalf of all other similarly “aggrieved” (i.e., affected) current and former employees.  The recoverable civil penalties are up to $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs.  When such penalties are awarded, the plaintiff current or former employee along with all other similar “aggrieved” employee will receive 25% of the penalties together with their attorney’s fees as a “bounty,” with the balance of the penalties payable to a State agency known as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  Click Here to read entire post.

In Magadia v. Wal-mart Associates, Inc., et al., No. 19-16184, 2021 WL 2176584 (9^th Cir. May 28, 2021), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court’s award of $102 million to an employee who sued the company alleging that he and other employees did not receive compliant wage statements or meal periods.  Unlike the district court, the Ninth Circuit found that the former employee who sued Walmart had suffered no meal period violations, and thus the employee had no standing to sue on behalf of others.  The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court incorrectly concluded Walmart’s wage statements did not comply with California law.

On January 6, 2021, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced the new final rule for worker classifications called the “economic reality” test. The new DOL final rule provided that two core factors were to be examined to determine whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor under federal law: (1) the nature and degree of control over the work; and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment. As previously discussed here, these requirements are much less stringent than the “ABC” test adopted by California, which requires that the worker perform work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature.

In a welcome surprise to the trucking industry, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 15, 2021, upheld the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (“FMCSA”) December 2018 determination that California’s meal and rest break rules (“MRB rules”) are preempted by federal law and do not apply to commercial truck drivers engaged in interstate commerce.  California’s strict meal and rest break laws require more breaks, more often, and with less flexibility as to timing than the federal hours-of-service regulations do for commercial drivers.  The decision is a welcome reprieve for the trucking industry which has faced a fair share of wage and hour battles in California over the last decade.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) just announced a “final rule” setting forth the standard for worker classifications – employee versus independent contractor – under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The FLSA establishes federal minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards for the public and private sectors.  All employers in the United States must abide by the FLSA; however, many states, including California, set forth more stringent requirements for worker classifications.