Get access to the exclusive HR Resources you need to succeed in 2018!
Training, policies and tools to help HR prevent and respond to harassment claims.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
California HR professionals already have a lot of state-specific details they need to understand. This year, many new laws are taking effect, and employers are grappling with a flurry of court rulings and regulatory activity from 2014.
To help clarify the changes, the California Chamber of Commerce provided an overview in Long Beach on Jan. 14, 2015–one in a series of seminars being held statewide this month.
Be Ready for Paid Sick Leave
One law that has received a lot of attention is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 1522, a complicated law that has generated much confusion among employers. The law mandates three paid sick days annually, at a minimum, for eligible workers.
Ellen Savage, an advisor for the chamber’s Labor Law Helpline, described the law as “very broad.” It applies to employees who have worked in the state for at least 30 days. The legislation includes a 90-day probationary period, Savage noted. A person must work at least 90 days for an employer before beingeligible to take paid sick leave, according to FAQs from the state website.
The law’s posting requirements for employers went into effect on Jan. 1, 2015. Companies must display a poster in the workplace, informing workers of their rights under the law.
But the bulk of the law–including accrual of paid sick leave, and use of available paid sick leave–will take effect on July 1.
There are three options for providing the paid sick leave to employees. One is the accrual method, in which the worker earns one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked. This would amount to slightly more than eight days annually for a full-time worker, but companies can limit the amount of paid sick leave actually taken in the year to three days, according to the FAQs. Accrued but unused time is carried over to the following year, though a business may cap this amount at 48 hours or six days.
A second option is the lump-sum method. With this approach, the employer gives workers three days of paid sick leave to use anytime during the year (keeping in mind the 90-day probationary period for new hires). It’s a “use it or lose it” method, according to Savage. But, she said, there’s a potential drawback: If employees know they’re going to lose any unused paid sick days on July 1, many of them might call in sick on the three days before that date.
The third method is an “existing employer” paid-leave option, which Savage described as convoluted. Under this option, companies wouldn’t have to offer an additional three days of paid sick leave, if their existing paid-time-off policy allows the use of paid sick leave for the same purposes and conditions in the law, and if the policy meets certain other requirements.
Workers eligible for paid sick leave can use those days for their own medical needs or to care for a family member. In addition, the law offers paid sick leave for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
An eligible employee may make a written or oral request for paid sick leave, according to the chamber. The law prohibits retaliation or discrimination against workers who request or use paid sick leave.
As for the payment amount, hourly employees will receive their regular rate, but the rate for exempt employees is unclear at this point, Savage said. If a worker’s pay fluctuates during the preceding 90 days of employment, then pay is calculated using a special formula.
Although the law applies to most types of workers, there are a few narrow exceptions. The legislation exempts providers of in-home support services, certain employees of air carriers, and workers covered by collective bargaining agreements that meet specific criteria.
Other Laws Taking Effect in 2015
Although the paid-sick-leave legislation drew a lot of interest at the Long Beach seminar, many other laws also were discussed. They include:
Meanwhile, a number of 2014 court rulings will have major implications for California employers. Among the issues and cases discussed at the seminar:
*Independent Contractor Classification. The question of whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors was at issue in Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp. and in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers Inc. In these cases, the plaintiffs alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors, depriving them of important benefits. In Ruiz, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that furniture-delivery drivers should be classified as employees, not contractors. And in the Ayala case, the plaintiffs won a victory when the California Supreme Court ruled last summer. The two cases highlight the issue of an employer’s “right to control,” and they reinforce the need for caution when classifying workers, Savage said.
*Off-the-Clock Work. In Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., a former pharmacy manager brought a class action, alleging failure to pay overtime for time worked off the clock. The former manager had performed this type of work despite the fact that his employer had a policy that prohibited this. The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Kaiser, finding there was no evidence that the employer was aware of the unreported overtime hours. The case demonstrates the need for clear, written policies on off-the-clock work, according to Savage.
*Franchisor Liability in Sexual Harassment Cases. In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, a former employee of a Domino’s pizza store filed a sexual harassment suit against the franchisee, franchisor and her former supervisor. She alleged that her supervisor harassed her, and she tried to hold the franchisor “vicariously liable.” The California Supreme Court ruled that the franchisor–which Frank calls the “mother ship”–wasn’t liable, finding that it had no control over the franchisee’s day-to-day operations.
Last year was also a busy one for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Here are a few of their most important activities in 2014:
Toni Vranjes is a freelance business writer in San Pedro, Calif.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Choose from dozens of free webcasts on the most timely HR topics.
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies