Federal ‘Families First’ Coronavirus Response Act Offers Sick Leave and Family Leave, with Exceptions 1

Federal ‘Families First’ Coronavirus Response Act Offers Sick Leave and Family Leave, with Exceptions

By Andy Katz and Mariko Yoshihara

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA – Congress passed the ‘Families First’ Coronavirus Response Act yesterday, which provides emergency paid sick leave and paid family leave to many employees, but with significant exceptions.  This Act goes into effect April 1.  The law covers employers with up to 500 employees, but employers with 50 or fewer may seek exceptions from the Department of Labor, and those with 25 or fewer are not obligated to reinstate an employee to their previous position. 

Under the Act, employees are entitled to up to two weeks of emergency paid sick leave and up to twelve weeks of emergency paid family leave. For emergency paid sick leave, employees must be “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave” because the employee: (1) is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine order related to COVID-19, (2) has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19, (3) is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking medical diagnosis, (4) caring for an individual subject to quarantine order, or has been advised to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19, (5) caring for a child, if their school or child-care provider has closed due to COVID-19, or (6) other conditions that the Federal government may specify later. 

If taking emergency paid sick leave to care for oneself, the employee is paid 100% of their full rate of pay, up to $511 per day and $5,110 total.  When leave is taken to care for others or for other qualifying reasons provided under the Act, an employee is paid two-thirds of their full rate of pay, up to $200 per day and $2,000 total.  This leave is in addition to any other paid leave to which an employee is already entitled to.  Employers cannot require that regular sick leave or paid time off be used before, or instead of, using this emergency sick leave. 

The Act also allows employees to take up to twelve weeks of emergency family leave. To qualify, an employee must have worked for their employer for at least 30 calendar days (unlike emergency paid sick leave, which is available to any employee, regardless of hours of work or length of service).  These workers can take emergency family leave if they are unable to work (or to telework) due to a need to care for the employee’s son or daughter under 18 years old if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or childcare provider is unavailable.  The closure or unavailability of childcare must be due to an officially declared COVID-19 public health emergency (by comparison, emergency paid sick leave is available when the closure or unavailability of childcare is due to COVID-19 precautions). 

When an employee is taking emergency family leave, the first 10 days may be unpaid (generally, the employee would likely take emergency paid sick leave during this 10-day period). After 10 days, the employee is entitled to two-third of their regular rate of pay, capped at $200 per day and $10,000 total.

While the ‘Families First’ Coronavirus Response Act will provide much-needed relief for many working families across the country, millions of workers are left out of the law or are ineligible because of restrictive definitions of family caregiving.  California must act now to fill these gaps and ensure that all workers are entitled to job-protected leave and wage replacement benefits to weather the storm of this unprecedented crisis.

Un resumen de los derechos de los trabajadores de California en tiempos de COVID-19

Un resumen de los derechos de los trabajadores de California en tiempos de COVID-19

Escrito por Andy Katz; Traducido por Megan Beaman

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA – Mientras el COVID-19 se difunda, muchos trabajadores están considerando cómo protegerse a sí mismos y a sus familias, mientras se preocupan por su trabajo y sus presupuestos.

En el momento en que se escribe esta publicación de blog (15 de marzo de 2020), el Departamento de Salud Pública de California y el Departamento de Salud Pública de San Francisco han emitido recomendaciones de “distanciamiento social” que definen las poblaciones vulnerables para incluir a personas de 60 años o más, y personas con ciertas afecciones de salud, como enfermedad cardíaca, enfermedad pulmonar, diabetes, enfermedad renal, y sistemas inmunes debilitados. El gobernador Newsom ha ordenado a los mayores de 65 años y enfermos crónicos que permanezcan en sus hogares. Un panel de expertos de la UCSF aconsejó: “Cualquier persona mayor de 60 años se queda en casa a menos que sea crítico.”

Mientras tanto, el ritmo rápido de propagación del virus ha causado llamamiento a la maximización del distanciamiento social en la población general para evitar una mayor propagación. Sin embargo, en este momento, los Centros para el Control de Enfermedades y CDPH solo recomiendan trabajar desde casa “si es posible.”

La evaluación de lo que los trabajadores deberían hacer para estar seguros y el papel que podrían desempeñar para ayudar a frenar la propagación del virus está fuera del alcance de un artículo sobre derechos legales. Sin embargo, de las recientes advertencias se confirma que los trabajadores tienen motivos legítimos de preocupación. Muchas personas quieren escuchar el llamado de los expertos en salud pública para que se queden en sus hogares por temor al mayor riesgo de complicaciones graves para las poblaciones vulnerables. Comprender cómo las leyes actuales pueden protegerlos es una información crítica que deben tener los trabajadores mientras sopesan estas decisiones importantes y abogan con sus empleadores por lo que necesitan. Esta publicación proporciona un resumen general de la situación actual de los trabajadores, teniendo en cuenta que muchos grupos de defensa, incluida la CELA y su contraparte nacional, NELA, están presionando al Congreso y a la legislatura de California para ofrecer aún más protección y ayuda muy necesaria a los trabajadores de California mientras intentan tomar las mejores decisiones para sí mismo y sus familias. Siga leyendo para obtener respuestas importantes a las preguntas frecuentes sobre los derechos de los trabajadores de California en la época de COVID-19.

¿QUÉ SUCEDE SI ME ENFERMO O NECESITO CUIDAR A LA FAMILIA?

Se ofrece protección por las leyes de licencia medica o licencia por enfermedad

Los empleados que están enfermos pueden tomar días de enfermedad pagados si ya los tienen acumulados. La cantidad de días de enfermedad disponibles depende de las políticas del empleador, aunque California requiere que los empleadores proporcionen un mínimo de tres días de licencia por enfermedad pagada por año y algunas ciudades requieren aún más. Los empleados que trabajan para empleadores que tengan 50 o más empleados tienen más derechos y pueden ser elegibles para hasta doce semanas de tiempo fuera del trabajo, sin pago. Los empleados enviados a casa, pero se les pide que trabajen, deben ser compensados ​​por ese trabajo sin tener que usar su tiempo acumulado de licencia por enfermedad.

La Ley de 2014 de Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families (Código Laboral §§ 245-249, 2810.5) requiere que todos los empleadores de California proporcionen a los empleados elegibles al menos tres días por año de licencia por enfermedad pagada. Los Ángeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Mónica, Oakland, Berkeley y Emeryville también tienen ordenanzas locales que requieren hasta seis o nueve días de licencia por enfermedad por año.

Los empleadores que toman represalias contra los empleados por tomarse una licencia por enfermedad a la cual tienen derecho bajo la ley corren el riesgo de responsabilidad por demandas por despido injustificado. Lo que está claro es que las cantidades legalmente requeridas de licencia por enfermedad no son suficientes, especialmente si un trabajador está tratando de pasar una cuarentena de 14 días o enfrenta incertidumbre con los miembros vulnerables de su hogar. Los trabajadores frequentemente clasificados erróneamente como contratistas independientes tienen los mismos derechos de licencia por enfermedad que los empleados bajo AB 5, aún si su empleador los llama un “contratista independiente.” Los empleados clasificados erróneamente pueden presentar reclamos en la corte o en el Departamento de Aplicación de Normas Laborales (DLSE).

Para las personas que trabajan para un empleador que tiene por lo menos 50 empleados dentro de un radio de 75 millas de su lugar de trabajo, la ley de California exige que los empleadores otorguen 12 semanas de licencia laboral protegida cada año bajo la Ley de Licencia Médica Familiar (FMLA) o la Ley de Derechos Familiares de California (CFRA) para una “condición grave de salud” del empleado o un miembro de su familia. Para calificar para esta licencia, el empleado debe haber trabajado para el empleador durante al menos un año en total durante su vida y haber trabajado al menos 1,250 horas en el último año calendario. Por lo tanto, si un empleado o miembro de la familia contrata COVID-19, es probable que estén protegidos por las leyes de licencia médica. Estas leyes también pueden proteger a las personas con sistemas inmunes comprometidos si un médico los retira del trabajo porque ellos o un miembro de su familia sufre de una afección crónica.

Es importante comprender que la licencia de FMLA y CFRA no está pagada (aunque el Seguro de Incapacidad del Estado puede estar disponible).

¿QUÉ SUCEDE SI ESTOY VULNERABLE A COVID-19?

La ley de derechos de los discapacitados de California proporciona adaptaciones razonables

La ley requiere que los empleadores consideren ofrecer trabajo desde el hogar o licencias médicas como una acomodación razonable bajo la Ley de Vivienda y Empleo Justo de California (FEHA) para las personas que califican como discapacitadas según la ley. Se requiere un análisis de caso por caso, pero los empleados con sistemas inmunes comprometidos o con riesgo médico deben hacer valer sus derechos y solicitar las adaptaciones que necesitan para mantenerse seguros.

Se requiere que los empleadores de California con al menos 5 empleados proporcionen adaptaciones razonables, a menos que puedan cumplir con un estándar muy alto para demostrar que el hacerlo causaría una dificultad excesiva.

Legal Aid at Work tiene una guía muy útil sobre cómo solicitar una adaptación razonable. La mejor práctica es presentar documentación escrita de la discapacidad y la necesidad de la adaptación, incluida una nota del médico. Si eso no es posible dado el sistema de salud afectado, los empleados pueden explicar su necesidad de adaptaciones a su empleador y consultar la información disponible públicamente para justificar la necesidad de adaptaciones razonables.

Por ejemplo, el Departamento de Salud Pública de California insta a las personas de alto riesgo a “quedarse en casa tanto como sea posible”, y el Departamento de Salud Pública de San Francisco insta a los trabajadores a “tele-trabajar si es posible” y “evitar el contacto con personas enfermas.”

Las condiciones y riesgos extraordinarios de COVID-19 ampliarán el rango de empleados que califican para acomodaciones razonables bajo la FEHA. La discapacidad según la FEHA se entiende en términos generales como una discapacidad física, incluida una afección que afecta el sistema inmunológico y limita una actividad importante de la vida. La ley ya reconoce que las “actividades principales de la vida” incluyen la interacción con otros, el trabajo y las funciones principales del sistema inmunitario. [JT1] Hay una excepción que se refiere al resfriado común y la gripe común, pero no hay nada común sobre COVID-19, por lo que esa excepción no debería aplicarse.

El objetivo de las adaptaciones razonables es mantener al empleado trabajando (y ganando un cheque). Entonces, la primera posibilidad que hay que considerar es el teletrabajo. El teletrabajo es una acomodación razonable donde le permite al empleado continuar desempeñando las funciones esenciales de su trabajo. Para los empleados que pueden trabajar por computadora, videoconferencia y teléfono, esta es una opción ideal. Los empleadores pueden rechazar esta acomodación si el permitir que el empleado tele-trabaje imponga una carga excesiva a las operaciones del empleador.

Si no se puede realizar un trabajo de forma remota, una adaptación de último recurso es un permiso de ausencia, lo cual es una opción según la ley donde “es probable que el permiso sea efectivo para permitir que el empleado regrese al trabajo al final del permiso, con o sin adaptaciones razonables adicionales, y no crea dificultades excesivas para el empleador.”

Los empleadores no pueden tener políticas generales que rechacen el teletrabajo o las licencias médicas (o cualquier otro adaptación posible). En cambio, los empleadores deben participar en un proceso interactivo de buena fe para encontrar una adaptación razonable y efectiva.

La ley de California prohíbe las represalias contra una persona con una discapacidad, incluso por disciplinarlas, tratarlas de manera diferente a otros trabajadores, o despedirlas. Esta protección se extiende a las personas que el empleador asume o “considera” como una persona con discapacidad. Si bien los empleadores pueden requerir documentación médica de una discapacidad y las limitaciones de los empleados, no pueden obligar a los empleados a revelar una condición de salud o discapacidad específica.

¿QUÉ PASA SI LA ESCUELA DE MI HIJA O HIJO ESTÁ CERRADA POR CORONAVIRUS?

El permiso de emergencia escolar y los beneficios de desempleo de California pueden ayudar a algunos trabajadores

Si pierde el trabajo para cuidar a su hija o hijo después del cierre de su escuela, puede ser elegible para el seguro de desempleo. El Departamento de Desarrollo de Empleo está manejando las solicitudes de cierre de escuelas caso por caso, y está alentando los reclamos de beneficios parciales donde el empleador permite horas reducidas, pero aún no ha aclarado si los requisitos regulares de estar disponible para trabajar no se aplicarán cuando el empleador no permita horas reducidas. Los empleados deben presentar una solicitud de inmediato ya que el período habitual de espera de 7 días para los beneficios no se aplica debido a COVID-19. Lea más sobre esto a continuación.

Además, según el Código Laboral de California, los empleadores con 25 o más empleados que trabajan en el mismo lugar deben permitir que los empleados tomen hasta 40 horas de licencia por año para atender una emergencia en la guardería o escuela de un niño. Sin embargo, un empleado aún debe notificar al empleador por adelantado.

ESTOY PERDIENDO SALARIOS. ¿QUÉ AYUDARÁ?

Los trabajadores de California pueden solicitar el reemplazo salarial por discapacidad y horas reducidas de trabajo

Hay dos programas estatales disponibles para los empleados que necesitan un reemplazo salarial para apoyar el distanciamiento social por su salud y seguridad: el Seguro Estatal de Incapacidad (SDI) y el Seguro de Desempleo (UI), ambos administrados por el Departamento de Desarrollo del Empleo (EDD). La Orden Ejecutiva del Gobernador Newsom renunció al período habitual de espera de una semana para las personas que están desempleadas y / o discapacitadas como resultado de COVID-19.

La elegibilidad del Seguro Estatal de Discapacidad define la discapacidad para incluir cualquier enfermedad o lesión que impida el trabajo regular o habitual. Los beneficios cubren 60-70 por ciento de los salarios hasta un máximo de $1,300 por semana durante un máximo de 52 semanas, y están exentos de impuestos. Un trabajador debe ser incapaz de trabajar durante al menos ocho días y debe presentar un certificado médico por un profesional de la salud antes de la emisión de beneficios. Las solicitudes pueden presentarse dentro de los 49 días de la primera fecha en que tuvieron que dejar de trabajar debido a una discapacidad.

Si bien el EDD aún no ha confirmado que las aplicaciones que citan solo vulnerabilidades relacionadas con la edad serán aprobadas, han confirmado que las personas que no pueden trabajar debido a “tener o estar expuestas” a COVID-19, si están certificadas por un profesional médico, pueden presentar un reclamo de seguro por discapacidad.

Los trabajadores de más edad que se encuentran en una población vulnerable definida por la edad y que obtienen la certificación médica de su condición relacionada con la edad como una “enfermedad” también pueden ser elegibles para los beneficios por discapacidad, aunque todavía no hay una respuesta segura a esta pregunta. Cuando los médicos u otros proveedores de atención médica completan los formularios de discapacidad, deberían considerar el uso de “R54,” el código de Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades para la “debilidad física relacionada con la edad” cuando no hay una afección más específica.

El EDD también administra los beneficios de Permiso Familiar Pagado (PFL), permitiendo hasta seis semanas de PFL a la tasa SDI a los californianos que no pueden trabajar porque están cuidando a un familiar enfermo o en cuarentena con COVID-19, si está certificado por un médico profesional.

Si un empleador cierra el lugar de trabajo debido a COVID-19 y no paga o solo paga parcialmente a sus empleados, los trabajadores pueden solicitar el seguro de desempleo (UI) o, si es elegible, SDI. Los beneficios del seguro de desempleo cubren aproximadamente el 50 por ciento de los salarios, hasta un máximo de $450 por semana, lo cual si es imponible.

El EDD ha descrito cómo los contratistas independientes y autónomos pueden calificar para la IU. El Seguro Estatal por Incapacidad solo está disponible para contratistas independientes que se hayan inscrito en la Cobertura Electiva. Los trabajadores frequentementese clasifican erróneamente como contratistas independientes, y pueden tener los mismos derechos a beneficios que los empleados bajo AB 5, incluso si su empleador los llama un “contratista independiente.”

¿QUÉ SUCEDE SI ESTOY EXPUESTO AL COVID-19 EN MI LUGAR DE TRABAJO?

Programas de prevención de lesiones y enfermedades del empleador y compensación para trabajadores

En cumplimiento de su misión de garantizar lugares de trabajo seguros y hacer cumplir los requisitos para que todos los empleadores tengan un Programa de Prevención de Lesiones y Enfermedades, Cal / OSHA ha emitido Directrices Provisionales para la industria general y la protección de los trabajadores de la salud contra COVID-19. Estas directrices incluyen alentar activamente a los empleados enfermos a quedarse en casa, enviar a los empleados con síntomas respiratorios agudos a casa de inmediato, y preparar un plan de respuesta ante un brote en caso de un brote. La orientación para los trabajadores de atención médica enfatiza la capacitación, los controles de prácticas laborales, y el equipo de protección personal.

Los empleadores son responsables de proporcionar compensación a través del sistema de compensación del trabajador por lesiones que surjan en el curso del empleo.

Un trabajador lesionado que estuvo expuesto y contrató el COVID-19 en su trabajo o a través de él puede presentar un reclamo por completar el formulario DWC1 y enviándolo a su empleador.

Cualquier exposición en el lugar de trabajo debe ser un factor importante que contribuya a la lesión de un empleado. Los empleadores frecuentemente disputan si una lesión está relacionada con el trabajo. Esas disputas generalmente son resueltas por la Mesa de Apelaciones de Compensación del Trabajador con base en el informe médico de un médico forense calificado por panel designado por la División de Compensación del Trabajador, probablemente un especialista en inmunología o medicina interna.

Si se aprueba el reclamo, los beneficios incluyen el reemplazo de salario por incapacidad temporal, atención médica, y compensación por incapacidad permanente. Desafortunadamente, los contratistas independientes erróneamente que realmente son empleados bajo la nueva “prueba ABC” de AB 5 (2019) no son elegibles para la compensación del trabajador hasta el 1 de julio de 2020.

Se necesitan más protecciones durante esta emergencia de salud pública

Se necesitan protecciones adicionales durante esta emergencia de salud pública. El gobernador de California, Gavin Newsom, miembros de la Legislatura de California, y el Congreso de los Estados Unidos han anunciado planes para introducir legislación que pueda proteger a los trabajadores sujetos a una orden de aislamiento o cuarentena por parte de un funcionario de salud contra la discriminación o las represalias. La Cámara de Representantes aprobó un paquete de ayuda federal pendiente que extendería hasta tres meses de licencia familiar remunerada por cuarentena (incluida la auto-cuarentena) y cuidado de niños debido a la emergencia de salud pública, 14 días adicionales de licencia por enfermedad remunerada para todos trabajadores estadounidenses durante una emergencia de salud pública, además de 8.67 días acumulados por año. El paquete también requeriría que los Estados alivien los requisitos de IU. Sin embargo, el Senado aún no ha tomado medidas sobre esta propuesta de ley. Estén atentos a esta publicación para actualizaciones continuas.

Para más información sobre COVID-19:

Departamento de Salud Pública de California

Preguntas frecuentes de la Agencia de Desarrollo Laboral y de la Fuerza Laboral de California

Cuadro resumen de beneficios de LWDA

Preguntas frecuentes sobre el coronavirus del Departamento de Desarrollo del Empleo

Preguntas frecuentes sobre el Departamento de Aplicación de Normas Laborales

Regulaciones del Departamento de Empleo y Vivienda Justo

Preguntas frecuentes de la organización Legal Aid at Work – Inglés – Español – Chino

About Andy Katz

Andy Katz is the principal of Law Offices of Andy Katz, fighting for workers' rights, consumers, and environmental protection. His law practice focuses on workplace discrimination and retaliation, wage theft, workers’ compensation, and health and disability insurance denials. He previously advocated for public health issues before the California legislature. He is a member of the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA). Web: www.andykatzlaw.com

10 fresh worker protections in 2020

10 fresh worker protections in 2020

SACRAMENTO – From breastfeeding accommodations to gender pay equity to combatting bias against hairstyles, several new laws took effect last month that impact California workers and their jobs. While AB 5the landmark bill regulating whether workers are employees or independent contractors – dominated headlines, there are 10 laws now on the books that will also have a significant impact on the workplace.

Saying “no” to privatized justice

Our labor laws mean nothing if workers are forced to waive those rights by signing a mandatory arbitration agreement. These agreements operate to suppress workplace claims by barring workers from bringing a lawsuit and exposing workplace abuse.

California law should now prohibit employers from coercing workers into signing these arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, but the law already is being challenged in court. If the challenge fails, workers could reject a mandatory arbitration agreement (making arbitration truly optional to resolve an employment dispute). Importantly, the new law also protects workers from retaliation – meaning they cannot be fired or not hired – if they refuse to sign an arbitration agreement.

For workers who do end up in arbitration, the odds are stacked against them. Increasingly, employers are refusing to even pay their share of arbitration fees, as a way to stall cases indefinitely. Now another new law will level the playing field by empowering workers to proceed to court, instead of arbitration, if the employer delays paying their share of fees.

Greater protections for harassment survivors

State lawmakers have continued advancing #MeToo reforms to combat sexual harassment. Now, workers have an extra two years to bring harassment or discrimination claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Also, building on the new law that bans secrecy around sexual harassment settlements, employers can no longer use “no-rehire” clauses – which punish victims by barring future employment with the employer and related entities, as a condition of settling.

A more equitable workplace

Workplace equity is the focus of several new measures now taking effect. First, many working mothers will have safe and clean lactation rooms with access to water, electricity, and refrigeration. Second, the CROWN Act will combat workplace bias against hairstyles that disproportionately impacts African American women. This new law will make it unlawful to discriminate against natural hairstyles and textures historically associated with race.

Equity extends beyond the traditional workplace, as exemplified by the US Women’s National soccer team in their quest for their fourth World Cup – which featured a prize pool valued at a paltry one-tenth of the men’s tournament. California will do its part by requiring permitted events on public lands to offer equal prize money, regardless of gender.

Finally, a new law will allow workers to collect a monetary penalty from their employer if they are paid late. This escalating penalty will deter repeat offenders and encourage employers to always pay their workers on time.

A justice system for all

Earlier this year, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court spoke out about the chilling effect of recent arrests of undocumented immigrants in our state’s courthouses. California law will now protect undocumented workers from civil arrest while attending a proceeding or other legal business in the courthouse.

California also took another step towards the promise of equal justice under the law. Soon, all judges, public-facing court staff, and attorneys will be required to attend implicit bias training to help identify their own biases in order to more fairly uphold our laws.

The upcoming legislative session is already looking packed, with proposals on major issues, such as workplace privacy, paid family leave, and adjustments to AB 5. We hope you stay tuned.

About Ken Wang, Esq.

Legislative Policy Associate, California Employment Lawyers Association

All California companies should mind their ABCs in classifying workers

All California companies should mind their ABCs in classifying workers

Courier On Bicycle Delivering Food In CityBy Hina Shah

The California Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous 82-page decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court  that settled a question of law that had not been previously decided: what is the proper legal standard in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under California’s wage and hour laws.

Joining 14 other jurisdictions, the California Supreme Court adopted the ABC standard to determine the worker’s classification under the “suffer or permit” language of California’s wage and hour regulations, called wage orders.  A worker is presumed to be an employee unless the company can establish that (a) the worker is free from control and direction over performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact; and (b) the work provided is outside the usual course of business for which the work is performed; and (c) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business.  Failure to prove any one of these factors will be fatal to being classified as an independent contractor.

As the Court acknowledges, the proper classification of workers not only has significance for the workers and business but also for the public at large.  When a company classifies a worker as an independent contractor, it does not have to pay federal Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and state employment taxes, provide worker’s compensation insurance, nor comply with numerous state and federal laws such as minimum wage and overtime. Of course, this results in tremendous cost savings for the business.

However, there is a compelling public interest in having workers classified as employees.  Workers depend on their wages for their survival.  By the turn of the nineteenth century, rapid industrialization, the influx of new immigrants and the shift to factory production resulted in exploitative working conditions and substandard wages.  A national movement emerged advocating for national and state legislation redefining the traditional master-servant relationship, limiting hours of work and setting a living wage.  California was at the forefront in adopting this worker-protective legislation, recognizing the unequal bargaining power between workers and companies.

Today, with globalization and technological innovation, we are experiencing another restructuring of the workplace.   The advent and rapid rise of the gig economy – the use of technology to deliver goods or services on demand – has increased the ranks of the contingent workforce.  An Intuit 2020 report authored by Emergency Research in partnership with Intuit Inc., predicts that close to 40% of American workers will be contingent workers by 2020.    But not everyone in the gig economy is properly classified as an independent contractor or freelancer.  Many on-demand labor platforms, such as Uber and Postmates, have been sued recently for misclassifying its workers.

The misclassification of workers is costly to almost everyone.  Workers are denied access to fundamental basic labor protections such as minimum wage and overtime which results in increased reliance on the public safety net.  The state of California estimates that it loses $7 billion per year in payroll tax revenue.  Businesses who properly classify their workers and comply with statutory wage protections are disadvantaged by companies who improperly classify workers as independent contractors and pocket the labor costs.

The Dynamex decision creates a simpler, clearer test that is consistent with the expansive statutory definition of “employ.”  Since 1989, a multi-factor test that arose in the context of a workers compensation case in the California Supreme Court case S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, guided the determination of employee status. But these factors were unwieldy and easily manipulated by employers to skirt employee status.  As the California Supreme Court acknowledged, “The ABC test allows courts to look beyond labels and evaluate whether workers are truly engaged in a separate business or whether the business is being used by the employer to evade wage, tax, and other obligations.”

No doubt the ABC test makes it easier for workers to prevail because it puts the burden squarely on employers to defeat the presumption of employee status.  But, the ABC test is not a radical departure in the law.  Each of the ABC factors were already factors under the multi-factor test, but now are given substantial weight.  Ultimately, the streamlining of the independent contractor test in wage and hour will reduce the uncertainty about whether the classification is legal.

The decision has huge ramifications for all California employers.  A 2017 report from the U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that the independent contractor model has proliferated and comprises 8.5% of the California workforce, a higher portion than the national workforce.  No doubt, on-line labor platform companies will need to revamp their worker classifications in light of this case but it is not the death knell of the gig economy. As the 2017 report showed, on-demand labor platforms made up a cumulative 1.5 percent of the national workforce from 2012-2016.  What this decision does is squarely reject the idea that flexible hours and the ability work from anywhere makes one an independent contractor.

Hina Shah is an Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Women’s Employment Rights Clinic at Golden Gate University School of Law.  This post originally appeared on the American Constitution Society Blog.

About Our Guest Bloggers

Our guest bloggers include members of CELA and other employee advocates. Email us if you are interested in guest blogging.

Offshoring Industry Trends Affecting California Employment Law

Offshoring Industry Trends Affecting California Employment Law

By Steve Danz

Businesses around the world are expected to spend nearly $1 trillion dollars on outside IT labor services in 2017. Perhaps this figure does not seem overwhelming on a global scale, but, the implications for employers and employees, on a micro-level, can be jarring and disruptive. Take, for example, the case of the IT department at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). Earlier this year, UCSF completed the transition to offshore their entire clinical IT team to an India-based company named HCL, resulting in the displacement of approximately 80 employees. A mere seven months ago, these individuals were gainfully employed. Next thing they know, they are being asked to train their replacements, ultimately culminating in the termination of their employment in favor of their new, ostensibly less expensive, counterparts.

What is striking is how pernicious this trend has become. In this case, this “organizational solution” was implemented at UCSF, a public nonprofit educational institution, who could not reasonably defend such a decision by borrowing the tired line used by for-profit companies that the move was in the “best interests of the shareholder and the bottom line.”  According to UCSF, the move will save nearly $30 million annually and will curb clinical-side IT costs that have nearly tripled between 2011 and 2016. In reality, the $50 million dollar contract would send the majority of the work to India and bring foreign IT staff to the UCSF campus on H-1B Visas.

Aside from the privacy and security concerns resulting from offshoring IT services, there are numerous business and employment law related concerns.  For instance, many large corporations are merely “shells” and offshore every job that does not interface with customers.  This makes it more difficult to bring a breaching or harmful company to court, and may even curtail enforcement from certain agencies such as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the U.S. Department of Labor.  Our court system and laws have a storied history of protecting California workers.  Permitting companies to contract their labor with the ability to simply terminate a contract, or to instantly disappear altogether, is unacceptable.

When the lines are blurred between employment and contract labor, it not only affects our American tax system by giving reprieve to unscrupulous corporations, it also destabilizes and disenfranchises the American workforce.

The legislature must ensure that these companies are held accountable for how they pay and treat their workers.  This may mean creating new laws to govern these types of contracting industries.  We could look north of the border for an example where Canadian laws permit a third, legally recognized category known as “dependent contractor.”  This worker is economically dependent on, and subject to the control of, one principal employer, but uses his or her own tools and may expect a profit from the services provided. In return, an employer must give the dependent contractor reasonable notice of termination and the dependent contractor can sue the principal similar to how an employee may sue the employer.

The Protect and Grow American Jobs Act, introduced by Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and Scott Peters, a California Democrat, aims to curb the outsourcing of American jobs by reforming the nation’s high-skilled immigration program and helping to adjust the requirements in the issuance of H1-B Visas.  One way that the bill may encourage U.S. based companies to hire American workers is by increasing the minimum salary for foreign workers under the H-1B visa program from $60,000 to $100,000.  This will unquestionably help when companies are considering hiring an American worker versus a foreign worker.

There may still be time to save American jobs.  California’s legislature, as it usually does, should take the lead in protecting our local economy by introducing similar legislation and fighting for the employees, before it is too late.

Steve Danz is senior partner and chief trial attorney at Stephen Danz & Associates. He represents plaintiffs in wrongful termination, discrimination, disability, wage and hour class actions, and false claims act whistleblower litigation in partnership with the Department of Justice.

About Our Guest Bloggers

Our guest bloggers include members of CELA and other employee advocates. Email us if you are interested in guest blogging.

Uber and tech: Are you listening now?

Uber and tech: Are you listening now?

PhoneBy Lisa Mak

This past Sunday, ex-Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a powerful blog post about the gender discrimination she experienced while working at Uber. It started with her male manager sending her messages, stating that he was in an open relationship and was trying to stay out of trouble at work but couldn’t help it, because he was looking for women to have sex with. Susan sent screenshots of the chat to Human Resources. The response? Uber HR and upper management told her that even though this was clearly sexual harassment, they were not comfortable giving the manager anything besides a warning. The reasons? This male manager was a “high performer” and it was his “first offense,” so they did not want to ruin his career over “an innocent mistake.” The company then gave Susan the “choice” of moving to another team, or staying on the male manager’s team and likely receiving a negative review from him.

When Susan later tried to transfer to other teams, her transfers were blocked due to undocumented “performance” problems. Her performance review was downgraded from a positive to a negative score, and she was told that she needed to prove herself as an engineer.

Presumably Uber, like most large U.S. companies, has a policy encouraging employees to report incidents of discrimination. Each time Susan received a sexist email, she forwarded it to HR. This included emails with her director when he said the company would not order promised leather jackets for the female engineers because they had not been able to get a bulk discount on the women’s jackets as they had for the men’s jackets. When Susan reported this to HR, she was told that maybe she was the problem, that she should not be surprised at the gender ratios in engineering, and that it was unprofessional to report things to HR via email.

Less than a week later, Susan’s manager told her that she was on “very thin ice” for her HR report and could be fired if she did it again. He also said that his threats to fire her for reporting things to HR were not illegal. Susan reported this conversation to HR and the CTO, but again the company did nothing. Susan left Uber for a new job.

After Susan’s blog post went viral, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick suddenly announced that the company is launching an “urgent” internal investigation into the matter, headed by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Some takeaways from Susan’s terrible experience: We need to stop pretending that the tech world is a pure meritocracy, and instead call out the prevalent sexism in that sector. For starters, there’s the numbers issue. On her last day at Uber, Susan calculated that of the over 150 reliability engineers there, only 3 percent were women. Just last month, civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson called out Uber to release its workforce diversity data. Why does a tech company of this size still need to be urged to be transparent about its diversity numbers? And then there’s the cultural issue – a culture that favors men in the STEM fields, that marginalizes women, and blames them when they speak out about misogyny. The problem of victim-blaming is also amplified in the tech space where employees are often on social media, with the risk of being judged by potential employers and targeted by internet trolls. We’ve known about these problems for years. So why hasn’t anything changed?

We also need to fix the double standard that underlies companies’ responses to these complaints. When Susan reported her male manager’s behavior, Uber did not want to ruin his career over a “first offense.” She later learned from other Uber female engineers that it was not, in fact, his first offense. Unfortunately, we’ve seen how companies use this excuse to sweep complaints under the rug, whether in tech or in other sectors. This attitude presumes that a man’s career opportunities are somehow more valuable and worthy of protection than a woman’s workplace rights.

Whether it was the harasser’s first offense or his fiftieth, Uber’s response was out of line as a matter of law. There is no exception to enforcing employment laws based on whether someone’s career and reputation would be “ruined” over claims of harassment and discrimination. It certainly is not a reason to avoid addressing the problem. Employers are legally obligated to investigate all complaints of harassment and to take prompt, effective action to stop it. Forcing the harassment victim to transfer is retaliation, not a remedy. Our laws focus on protecting those who suffer harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and on eliminating those evils from our workplaces – not on whether the perpetrator will have hurt feelings or a derailed career.

Companies need to start taking complaints seriously, doing fair investigations, and taking appropriate remedial steps at the time these issues are raised. Uber is not some small start-up with five employees stuffed in a garage. It has thousands of employees, an HR department, legal counsel, and a board of directors. Why was nothing done to help Susan until she made her story public?

Uber does not get credit for now conducting an investigation into Susan’s claims, after she has already left the company and after she made a public blog post about her experience. Uber does not get credit for now committing to release its diversity statistics after this incident. Investigating and taking action should have happened long ago, instead of letting the situation spiral out of control. Kalanick’s apology now is simply too little, too late.

It should not take a blog post and public outrage to make a company finally pay attention to employees’ complaints of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. Our laws require companies to treat their employees fairly all the time, every time, not just when it is a PR nightmare.

About Lisa Mak

Lisa Mak is an associate attorney in the Consumer & Employee Rights Group at Minami Tamaki LLP in San Francisco. She is passionate about representing employees and consumers on an individual and class basis to protect their rights. Her practice includes cases involving employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, labor violations, and severance negotiations. Ms. Mak is the Co-Chair of the CELA Diversity Committee, Co-Chair of the Asian American Bar Association’s Community Services Committee, and an active volunteer at the Asian Law Caucus Workers’ Rights Clinic. Ms. Mak is a graduate of UC Hastings School of Law and UC San Diego. She is fluent in Cantonese and conversant in French.

Why I called my relatives this weekend

Why I called my relatives this weekend

Technological people
By Elizabeth Kristen

We are not a close family. We rarely get together.

We certainly don’t call each other on a daily or even monthly basis. It’s basically a text-on-your-birthday type of relationship.

But this weekend, I called my brother and my uncle.

My uncle is a Vietnam veteran and an accountant in Kansas. He is a steadfast democrat and demoralized having lived through Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s destruction of public education in that state.

So he was distressed about Trump, but not mobilized to fight him. I spoke with him about his son, who he thinks voted for Trump and ways my uncle might reach his son about issues that matter to him — net neutrality.  We also chatted about my Aunt and her vote for a third party candidate.  Again, we discussed things that motivate her, such as the IDEA (providing support for students with disabilities — a law Education Secretary Betsy DeVos thinks is optional for the states).  After my conversation with my Uncle, he started emailing me about ways to get involved with fighting back against the Trump agenda.  He told me about this effort to provide a way to contact Trump through his businesses.  So I made that call, and it was great and I emailed my uncle about my experience.  I continue to text my Uncle to call his Kansas Senators.

My brother served in the Army and now lives in Indiana. He is a “white working class” voter. The ones who supposedly love Trump. But my brother also is a Democrat and an Obama supporter. When I called him, he too thought his voice didn’t matter.  I tried to convey the urgency of the panic I feel every day about how Trump is out to destroy everything I care about.

I looked up my brother’s Senators and their positions on the Executive Order Muslim ban and emailed him to call Congress.  To be honest, I am not sure he did it.  But I will keep trying.

Lots of liberals I know bemoan our inability to have conversations with Trump voters. Our emphasis on those lost conversations may be keeping us from remembering the easier and perhaps more impactful calls we can have with our friends and relatives in red states.

They need to make themselves heard too.

Those of us in blue states sometimes may believe we can’t or don’t need to do anything because our Congress people and Senators may share our views.

But we can and should still call Congress. I visited California Senator Diane Feinstein’s local office in person twice last month to urge her to vote against Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. My visit sparked others I know to do the same.

Now is not the time for business as usual. If you are calling your representatives, thank you. Just make sure that the next call you make is to friends and family to ask them to get involved in the fight. If they already are, let’s support each other and continue to connect to those in other states who also are struggling to find meaningful ways to protect the values we care about.

About Elizabeth Kristen

Elizabeth Kristen is the Director of the Gender Equity & LGBT Rights Program and a senior staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work.  Ms. Kristen began her public interest career as a Skadden Fellow at Legal Aid.  Ms. Kristen graduated from University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 2001 and served as a law clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.  In 2012-13, she served as a Harvard law School Wasserstein Public Interest Fellow.  She has been a lecturer at Berkeley Law School since 2008. Legal Aid at Work together with the California Women’s Law Center and Equal Rights Advocates make up the California Fair Pay Collaborative dedicated to engaging and informing Californians about fair pay issues.

Election aftermath: The road ahead

Election aftermath: The road ahead

photo-1445365813209-5ab6d8f397cbWhen I was in law school, a white male student ran for a position in our student body government. In his campaign statement, he said that if elected, he would eliminate funding for the school’s minority organizations and use the money to “blow lines” off the taut stomachs of Southeast Asian boys. At a town hall meeting, this man still did not seem apologetic and told us to lighten up, that it had just been a joke. Many minority students, including yours truly, were outraged. When people ask why I became a civil rights lawyer and involved in progressive causes, I cite that incident as one of several defining moments. Because it was heartbreaking that someone in San Francisco these days would still think that racist jokes were acceptable, and that some people didn’t think it was a big deal.

The election results brought new heartbreak. Whatever theories emerge about the outcome, one thing remains clear – there is still so much to be done to protect our civil rights. If you think we are safe from racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia in this country, think again. If you think that the laws we have in place offer enough protection to prevent unfair treatment, think again. If you think that there are too many complaints about discrimination and harassment, think again.

Our state’s public policy is clear:

“It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.

It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general.”

Discrimination in any form adversely affects us all. It’s not a joke, and it’s definitely a big deal. People who come to my office are not litigious by nature – they have suffered real harm and mistreatment in the workplace simply because of who they are. Because their skin is not white. Because they are women. Because they were not born in this country and speak imperfect English. Because of who they pray to. Because they are perceived as too old or too disabled to work. Because they love their same-sex partner. Because of these and other immutable qualities that are supposed to be embraced and protected under our laws and under human decency.

If you think we’ve progressed to be more inclusive, look harder at what this nation has revealed about itself. And look harder at the work that needs to be done. Now more than ever, we need to continue seeking justice, fair treatment, and equal opportunities for all.

About Lisa Mak

Lisa Mak is an associate attorney in the Consumer & Employee Rights Group at Minami Tamaki LLP in San Francisco. She is passionate about representing employees and consumers on an individual and class basis to protect their rights. Her practice includes cases involving employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, labor violations, and severance negotiations. Ms. Mak is the Co-Chair of the CELA Diversity Committee, Co-Chair of the Asian American Bar Association’s Community Services Committee, and an active volunteer at the Asian Law Caucus Workers’ Rights Clinic. Ms. Mak is a graduate of UC Hastings School of Law and UC San Diego. She is fluent in Cantonese and conversant in French.

A turning point in paid family leave: California measure has broad political and medical support

A turning point in paid family leave: California measure has broad political and medical support

image1

Charles Anderson, a new father who was denied parental leave by his employer, and his baby girl.

By Jenna Gerry

With unprecedented bi-partisan support, a bill that would expand parental leave to 2.7 million more of California’s working families is on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. Introduced by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), SB 654, the New Parent Leave Act, would extend six weeks of job-protected bonding leave to California workers at companies with at least 20 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite.

This bill addresses one of the biggest barriers workers face when trying to take Paid Family Leave — knowing that their job may not be there when they get back. This bill is remarkable not only for what it will provide to millions of California workers but for the justified bi-partisan support it received on the Assembly floor.

Here in California, the state Chamber of Commerce has consistently put every bill expanding the right to take job-protected parental leave on its infamous “Job Killer” list. In the past, a bill’s placement there has ensured that no Republican legislator would support it, and it has often meant that few to no moderate Democrats would either. Indeed, it can be the kiss of death for progressive legislation, even in our Democratic-controlled Legislature. So, as SB 654, prominent on the “Job Killer” list, headed to the Assembly floor in August, Jackson and the bill’s sponsors were not sure if we had the 41 votes we needed. But something miraculous happened.

After hearing her fellow Republicans voice staunch opposition, Assemblymember Melissa Melendez (R-Murrieta) stood up to speak in support of SB 654. She described her own experience of deciding to leave the military when she became a mother — in part because she would have received only six weeks off after giving birth. She could not imagine having to leave her child that fast. Melendez called on her colleagues to consider that we guarantee the job of any member of the military reserves if they are called to active duty. And she asked whether “the birth of a child is less important than service to one’s country.” She also challenged past rhetoric from both sides of the aisle justifying votes against parental leave measures.

When the final vote came down, nine Republicans joined 45 Democrats in favor of SB 654. We hope this was a turning point, and our state and nation can now transcend partisan politics to understand, finally, that family leave affects us all. As Melendez put it, “Republicans and Democrats agree that family is important, that children are important. And, if you believe that, you have to put your money where your mouth is.”

California’s health community is also speaking out for SB 654. More than 120 California health care professionals and 16 health care organizations — including the American Academy of Pediatrics’ California chapter — delivered a letter to Governor Brown this week urging him to sign it. “This is about clear empirical evidence,” said one signatory, Dr. Paul Chung of UCLA, “showing that the health and well-being of parents and their children — the present and future of our state’s economic productivity — are improved by job-protected paid parental leave.”

In addition to my organization, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, several groups that advocate for policies to support the viability of working families cosponsored and helped promote SB654: the California Employment Lawyers Association, Equal Rights Advocates, and the California Work and Family Coalition (which counts these groups and many more among its members).

Now it is time for Governor Brown to make parental leave a reality for millions more California workers, especially because they’re already funding six weeks of it through payroll deductions. But parental leave is about more than the bottom line; it is about ensuring the wellbeing of California families and the state as a whole.

Jenna Gerry is an attorney at Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC), where she advises workers struggling with family and medical crises and participates in legislative advocacy to expand family-friendly workplace policies.  LAS-ELC is a co-sponsor of SB 654, along with the California Employment Lawyers Association, the Work and Family Coalition, and Equal Rights Advocates.  

 

About Our Guest Bloggers

Our guest bloggers include members of CELA and other employee advocates. Email us if you are interested in guest blogging.

We’ve Finally Reached 2016 African American Women’s Equal Pay Day

We've Finally Reached 2016 African American Women’s Equal Pay Day

Harriet Tubman portrait

Today we commemorate “African American Women’s Equal Pay Day,” the day in the year when African American women’s wages finally catch up to what men earned last year.  It is important to note that African American Women’s Equal Pay Day comes nearly four months after “Women’s Equal Pay Day,” which included wages of women of all races, and was marked on April 12th of this year.  The four-month lag signifies the nearly 20-cent wider wage gap African American women face when compared to women of all races.  So, while the average wage gap for all women in the United States is 79 cents for every dollar a man makes, African American women’s wages are at just 60.5 cents on the dollar.  African American lesbian couples, who doubly experience the high wage gap (plus discrimination based on sexual orientation), have triple the poverty rate of white lesbian couples.

Eliminating the racial gender wage gap would provide concrete economic benefits to African American women.  To give a concrete example, women could buy nearly three years of food for their families or pay rent for nearly two years with those additional wages.  Given that so many African American women and their families are struggling to make ends meet, receiving equal pay would make a life-changing difference.

Last year, California passed one of the strongest equal pay laws in the country, the California Fair Pay Act of 2015, which strengthened protection for workers who discuss or ask about their wages and the wages of others.  It also protects women who challenge gender based pay differences in jobs that are “substantially similar” to theirs.  For example, a female housekeeper who is being paid less than a male janitor could remedy the pay difference since the jobs are so similar and wage inequality would likely be unjustified.  The California Labor Commissioner is charged with enforcing the California Fair Pay Act.

This year, California State Senator Hall has introduced SB 1063, the Wage Equality Act of 2016, which would add race and ethnicity to California’s strong Fair Pay Act.  Under SB 1063, California employers would be prohibited from paying workers less for substantially similar work based on race or ethnicity.  An African American woman thus might have a claim that she is being paid less based not only on sex, but on race as well.  With SB 1063, she would be able to more effectively address racial wage inequality.

Certain cities already are specifically addressing wage inequality by sex, race and ethnicity.  For example, in San Francisco, city contractors will have to disclose data on what they pay their workers, broken down by both sex and race, to the City.  California state contractors may also be required to submit similar pay data reports under another bill that should reach the governor’s desk for approval.  And the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intends to revise its Employer Information Report (EEO-1) data collection to include salary information based on ethnicity, race, and sex.

Our current laws against sex and race discrimination have proven inadequate to end race- and sex-based unequal pay since the pay gap remains depressingly large more than fifty years after passage of federal civil rights laws in these areas. Pay disclosure rules are an important step towards closing the pay gap for women and women of color in particular. They force employers to self-audit and identify unjustified pay disparities.  In the event they do not correct the disparities, disclosure enable government agencies to conduct targeted enforcement of equal pay laws.

It will reportedly be more than a decade before the first African American woman (Harriet Tubman) graces the face of U.S. currency.  With these new laws there is hope that before the Tubmans arrive, African American women will already be receiving the full value of those $20 bills and not just 60 percent.

The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center together with the California Women’s Law Center and Equal Rights Advocates make up the California Fair Pay Collaborative dedicated to engaging and informing Californians about fair pay issues.

 

 

 

About Elizabeth Kristen

Elizabeth Kristen is the Director of the Gender Equity & LGBT Rights Program and a senior staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work.  Ms. Kristen began her public interest career as a Skadden Fellow at Legal Aid.  Ms. Kristen graduated from University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 2001 and served as a law clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.  In 2012-13, she served as a Harvard law School Wasserstein Public Interest Fellow.  She has been a lecturer at Berkeley Law School since 2008. Legal Aid at Work together with the California Women’s Law Center and Equal Rights Advocates make up the California Fair Pay Collaborative dedicated to engaging and informing Californians about fair pay issues.