NYC: Unplugged? A Proposed New York City Counsel Bill Could Have Drastic Effects On Electronic Communications Outside Work Hours

Employment BlogLeave a comment

On March 22, 2018, a groundbreaking bill was proposed in New York that prohibits employers from requiring employees to access work-related electronic communications outside of work hours. A similar law exists in France, but no other American city has enacted such a law. The bill would make it illegal for employers with more than ten (10) employees to require their employees to access work-related electronic communication outside of normal work hours. Such electronic communications would include emails, text messages, and instant messenger services. In addition, the bill would require employers to adopt written policies regarding the use of electronic devices for sending or receiving work-related communications. The policies would be required to include the usual work hours for each class of employee and the categories of paid time off to which they are entitled. Furthermore, the bill would require employers provide employees with a notice of their “right to disconnect” from work-related electronic communications outside work hours. Certain employees would be exempt including those whose employment requires them to be on call 24 hours a day when working, those in work study programs, those compensated through scholarships. Independent contractors would also be exempted from these protections. Government and municipal employees are not included in the protections under the bill. To ensure compliance with the new…

Employment app

Proposed Amendments to Employment Regulations Regarding Criminal History, the California Family Rights Act, and the New Parent Leave Act

Employment Blog1 Comment

Proposed Amendments to Employment Regulations Regarding Criminal History, the California Family Rights Act, and the New Parent Leave Act The Fair Employment and Housing Council of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing provided notice on February 16, 2018 that it intends to amend sections 11017.1 and 11087-97 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. Amendment would follow a public hearing at 10:00 a.m. on April 4, 2018 in Los Angeles and review of written comments due by 5:00 p.m. on the same day. The amendment is intended to clarify interpretations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In 2017, two bills (AB 1008 and SB 63) added new sections to the FEHA. AB 1007 is intended to “ban the box” by prohibiting employers from seeking criminal history information until a conditional offer of employment is made. SB 63 enacts the New Parent Leave Act (NPLA), expanding parental leave rights at employers with 20-49 employees. The Council contends that the proposed amendments are intended to describe how the two new laws operate and fit into the FEHA by centralizing, clarifying, and codifying the two statutes. Specifically, the Council indicates that the amendments will: “(1) articulate the parameters of AB 1008 in an orderly fashion in the context of existing regulations regarding the consideration…

Barber Pole, Haircut, Cosmetology

A Fresh Cut on Commission-Based Pay in Cosmetology

Employment BlogLeave a comment

A recent change to the California Labor Code modifies the definition of commission pay for employees that are licensed pursuant to the Barbering and Cosmetology Act. Senate Bill 490, introduced in February 2017, adds section 204.11 to the California Labor Code, authorizing beauty salon employees to be paid commission if certain requirements are met. The requirements kick in when the employee, who must be licensed pursuant to the Barbering and Cosmetology Act is being paid for providing services where such license is required. These cosmetologists can agree to be compensated by percentage or flat rate sum commission in addition to a base hourly rate if the following requirements are met: The employee’s base hourly rate is at least two times the state minimum wage rate in addition to commissions paid; and The employee’s wages are paid at least twice during each calendar month on a day designated in advance by the employer as the regular pay day. With this new compensation option, employers will pay the break times based upon two times the minimum wage amount, which will lessen the administrative burden when compared to piece rate compensation. For example, under the new law, a salon employer could enter into a pay agreement such as the following: Salon owner Sweeney Todd agrees to pay employee…

Mind Your Business: Part Three – Agreements Among Founders and the Entity

Firm ArticlesLeave a comment

Mind Your Business: Part Three – Agreements Among Founders and the Entity There is a nearly infinite number of agreements founders can make amongst themselves and with the business. A few of the most common types are discussed below. Keep in mind that some agreements will not be valid if they contradict a statute that governs the operation of your particular entity type. This article does not take consideration of such statutes. As always, before drafting any agreements that will impact your business, you should consult with a knowledgeable attorney to discuss your goals and the best way to reach them. Founders’ Agreement A Founders’ Agreement is a great starting point when you first meet with your fellow founders to get in writing the things you expect from your business. It can also help to solidify your common goals and see the path of least resistance to get there. The Founder’s Agreement will often include the roles and responsibilities of each founder, the method for decision-making and operation of the business, ownership interest, how contributions will be valued, vesting of interest, and how to handle the voluntary (or involuntary) departure of a founder. It is important to keep in mind that the Founders’ Agreement is just a roadmap for the business and to be sure…

Federal Proclamation Effect on The Status of Employment Discrimination Laws in California

Employment BlogLeave a comment

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that under his interpretation of Title VII, gender identity and transgender status are not protected. According to Attorney General Sessions, “Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status.” The phrasing causes some pause, given that, in 1998, the United States Supreme Court held in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that Title VII also applies to harassment between members of the same gender. The Justice Department recently made the same argument with respect to sexual orientation at oral argument before the Second Circuit in Zarda v. Altitude Express. This is a significant departure from the Obama Administration as well as the current position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which interprets Title VII to prohibit such discrimination. While this topic continues to be debated, employers may be struggling to confirm they are in compliance with the ever-evolving legislation. Background Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits, in relevant part, discrimination and harassment “because of […] sex.” Title VII does not, however, explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, or gender expression. Until recently, Circuit Courts of Appeal unanimously interpreted the term “sex”…

Starting July 1, 2017, Employers Must Provide New Employees with Notice of Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking

Employment BlogLeave a comment

Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging, discriminating, or retaliating against an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking for taking time off from work for certain purposes related to addressing the domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As of July 1, 2017, employers with 25 or more employees must now provide written notice of the rights and duties under the existing law. A recent bill amended Labor Code section 230.1 to include employer notice requirements and ordered the Labor Commission to develop a sample form for employers to use to comply. If an employer chooses not to use the form, the notice used must be substantially similar in content and clarity. Whatever form is used must include information explaining an employee’s right to take time off, right to reasonable accommodations, right to be free from discrimination and retaliation, and right to file a complaint. Although the rights under Labor Code section 230 for employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking have not changed, the new notice requirement imparts more responsibility on employers and thus warrants a refresher. Right to Time Off – Employees who are the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking are permitted to take time off to: Seek medical attention; Obtain…

California coastline Murphy, Campbell, Alliston & Quinn a Sacramento law firm

Surfrider Foundation Blocks Billionaire’s Attempt To “Drop In” On The Public’s Use Of Martins Beach

Firm ArticlesLeave a comment

With A Recent Decision By The San Mateo Superior Court, The Surfrider Foundation Blocks Billionaire’s Attempt To “Drop In” On The Public’s Use Of Martins Beach Public access to California’s 840 miles of coastline has been a point of contention between groups attempting to preserve historic access and private landowners for decades.  One ongoing controversy is access to the northern California surf spot of Martins Beach.  Access to Martins Beach, an ideal surfing spot, secluded and protected from wind by jutting cliffs on either end, is only available by way of Martins Beach Road, an offshoot of the Pacific Coast Highway.  The road traverses 53 acres of land owned by billionaire Vinod Kholsa, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems.  Kholsa does not own a home on the land and has indicated no intention to build one.  At the edge of Martins Beach Road lies a low-slung gate.  For a time, the public was occasionally allowed access by Kholsa’s property manager, but, in 2010, Kholsa allowed the gate to be closed permanently, despite the receipt of a letter from the county demanding the gate remain open every day. Kholsa’s property manager, Steve Baugher, testified it was his decision to close the gate and stated he had even hired security guards to “deter trespassers.”  In October 2013, five…

The Sip Stops Here…but Not There, or There, or There: New Restrictions on Interstate Shipping of Wine

Hot Topics, Wine and BeerLeave a comment

According to some retailers, UPS and FedEx are now limiting the interstate shipping of wine. This crackdown is not in response to any new legislation – the shipping companies are instead enforcing existing laws in many states. But First, a Primer on Shipping Alcohol Across State Lines The Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is prohibited. With the repeal of Prohibition, states were granted significant power over the distribution and sale of alcohol that is not present in laws related to shipping other products. This has led to wildly disparate treatment of the ability to ship alcohol across state lines. For instance, some states allow residents to order wine from any retailer in the US while others don’t allow any shipments at all. The Liquor Law Repeal and Enforcement Act (aka the Webb-Kenyon Act) prohibits shipments of alcoholic beverages between states in violation of any law of the receiving state. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) requires a basic permit for wholesalers, importers, and manufacturers of alcoholic beverages. (Retailers are not required to obtain basic permits under the FAA Act.) Basic permits are…

Further Delay to the FDA Labeling Requirement

Wine and BeerLeave a comment

As part of the labeling requirement contained within the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the FDA was required to establish menu-labeling regulations. Enforcement was expected to begin December 1, 2015, but has been delayed twice. The first delay pushed the deadline for enforcement to December 1, 2016. In December, Congress directed the FDA to push the enforcement date until one year after publication of the final guidance. The FDA announcement on March 9, 2016 made this delay official. There has not yet been an indication as to when the final guidance will be published. The rule will require restaurants and similar retail food establishments with 20 or more locations operating under the same name and serving substantially the same menu items to post calorie information for standard menu items and provide guests with additional nutrition information upon request. Originally, alcohol was proposed to be exempted but is now included in the labeling requirement for restaurants. The majority of comments supported having alcohol beverages covered under the final rule due to impacts on public health. A restaurant that meets the parameters of the regulations will have to list calorie and nutrition information for all beer, wine, and spirits listed on a menu. Mixed drinks that are not listed on a menu are exempted, as are liquor…

murphy campbell, the resurgence of the zombie foreclosure Murphy, Campbell, Alliston & Quinn

“Hoooommmeeessss”: The Resurgence of the Zombie Foreclosure

Firm ArticlesLeave a comment

If you want to write a blockbuster movie or a catchy song, zombies are great.  If you want to protect your credit, they aren’t. Upon receiving a notice of foreclosure, some homeowners move out, assuming the lender will simply take over the property. Unfortunately for these homeowners, in some cases the foreclosure process is not completed.  In the meantime, the property is left vacant and often falls into disrepair or is occupied by squatters. Since the foreclosure was never completed, title remains in the homeowner’s name. This situation is referred to as a “zombie foreclosure” and it can lead to devastating results for the homeowner. While the number of zombie foreclosures has decreased in recent years, it is a situation that still plagues homeowners. In the past year, there has been a resurgence of zombie foreclosures in California. When a home is left unattended, visible signs of distress will appear, causing the value of the property itself, and the surrounding properties, to decrease, making it even more difficult to complete the foreclosure and thus perpetuating the housing crisis. Some of the consequences for those bitten by a zombie foreclosure include liability for unpaid property taxes, homeowners association assessments, fines for failing to comply with housing codes or other ordinances, and local government bills for repairs,…