California Labor Paid Sick Leave Laws Clarified, Still Complicated

Sacramento, CA While recent changes in California labor law relating to sick pay and paid time off for illness were designed as a help and support for California workers, implementing and maintaining those changes has served as a bit of a headache for employers.

In sum, The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (AB 1522) was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown last year for a planned two-stage implementation at the beginning of 2015. Various changes to record keeping and the posting of notices were brought in at the first of the year, followed by the implementation of changes to accruals and reporting on July 1.

The aforementioned changes to the California labor code were part of the original adoption of AB 1522. However, employers found the rollout somewhat overwhelming, requiring an update to AB 1522 in an effort to straighten out some of the confusion.

That update came in the form of AB 304, a bill that Governor Brown swiftly signed into law on July 14 and is effective immediately. The amendments provide some clarification with regard to compliance over payments, provisions for time off and so on. The clarifications are important not only for the employer - in order to properly comply - but also the employee, for whom a basic understanding of the new provisions is important in order to identify whether or not an employer is properly conforming to the new guidelines.

One of the clarifications with regard to California and labor law stemming from the quick passage of AB 304 has to do with record keeping: while an employer can know the reason(s) and purposes for which an employee uses paid sick time, there is no requirement in record-keeping protocols for maintaining documentation to that end.

Were an employer to maintain documentation with regard to the purposes for paid sick leave, or were an employee to find himself getting stiffed on sick pay and sick leave, he needs to be able to identify incidents of noncompliance in order to initiate and pursue a California labor lawsuit, as required.

AB 304 clarifies protocols for calculating paid sick leave, and the employer now has two options for doing so: 1) a calculation formula akin to the regular rate of pay for overtime calculation for the workweek in which paid sick time is used, and 2) the original calculation protocol dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.

The July 14th amendment also provides for alternate accrual methods beyond the formula of one hour for each 30 hours worked, provided the accrual is on a regular basis and the employee will have 24 hours of paid sick leave available by the 120th calendar day of employment.

There is also clarification, for the purposes of California labor employment law, with regard to the right an employer has in limiting an employee’s use of paid sick days to 24 hours or 3 days either: (1) in each year of employment (by anniversary year, for example); or (2) in each calendar year; or (3) in any specified 12-month period.

Among other provisions in AB 304 is clarification over the requirement that an employee, to be eligible for paid sick leave, must be in a position to have worked for the same employer for 30 days, as opposed to simply working for any employer in the state of California.

There is a somewhat complicated grandfather clause for those employees who were provided paid sick leave or paid time off prior to the implementation of AB 1522 at the first of the year, and for whom a different method for accruing sick time may have been used. This clause allows for a more gradual accrual, provided the employee accrues eight hours of paid sick leave in the first three months of employment and was eligible to earn 24 hours of sick leave or paid time off within nine months of employment.

At the end of the day, California state labor laws are intended to level the playing field and provide fairness for the employee. A mutual understanding of California employee labor law is an important prerequisite for the employer to properly implement new laws, and for the employee to understand when those statutes are being accidentally or purposefully circumvented…

Respecting Caitlin Jenner and Her Community Under the Law

Sacramento, CA Our introduction this past week to Caitlin Jenner, as sensational as it may have been played out in the media, reminds us that with the modern realities of tolerance and equality, transgendering is anything but sensational and is increasingly accepted carte blanche as an aspect of the new normal. As a result, lawmakers have been grappling with updates of definitions and approaches to traditional bastions such as public and workplace washrooms.

For some time now, California labor law has protected transgendered individuals from discrimination and harassment. However, a decision by the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento last spring held that denying transgender employees the right to use gender-identity appropriate facilities remains a violation of the state’s anti-discrimination laws, and other statutes entrenched in the California Labor Code.

That decision, released in March of 2014, held that transgendered employees in the state of California have the right to use gender-identity appropriate change room and washroom facilities in the state of California. Various other states have enacted similar updates to their laws.

Now, the Feds have finally entered the pool with an update to federal codes that mirror California and labor law, as well as similar laws in other jurisdictions related to transgendered individuals.

To that end, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on June 1 published A Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers.

“The core principle is that all employees, including transgender employees, should have access to restrooms that correspond to their gender identity,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels, in a released statement. “OSHA’s goal is to assure that employers provide a safe and healthful working environment for all employees.”

The guide itself is detailed, but in sum, the rule is stated simply thus: if a female has transgendered, either emotionally or physically (or both) to male and therefore identifies as male, then that individual has the right and freedom to use the men’s washroom.

The same holds true for Bruce Jenner, who now identifies as Caitlin. It wasn’t that long ago that Jenner was being interviewed on national television about his story and his ongoing transition to female, the gender to which Jenner now identifies. This week, the release of the Caitlin Jenner photo shoot for the cover of Vanity Fair is a stark representation of what Jenner was revealing just a few weeks ago.

Therefore, applying the Bruce Jenner/Caitlin Jenner example to the rule of law, Bruce Jenner identifies as female now (as Caitlin Jenner) and thus, has the right to use the women’s washroom.

The OSHA guide, and the corresponding law, is founded upon the core belief that all employees in the workplace should be permitted, without retaliation, use of the facility that best matches his or her gender identification. At the end of the day, however, the OSHA guide notes that the employee should determine “the most appropriate and safest option for him - or herself.”

OSHA also identifies best polices that provide additional options that transgendered employees may choose, but are at the same time not a requirement. Such options, as available, could include: “Single-occupancy gender-neutral (unisex) facilities, and: Use of multiple-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls.

“Under these best practices, employees are not asked to provide any medical or legal documentation of their gender identity in order to have access to gender-appropriate facilities,” states the guideline. “In addition, no employee should be required to use a segregated facility apart from other employees because of their gender identity or transgender status. Under OSHA standards, employees generally may not be limited to using facilities that are an unreasonable distance or travel time from the employee’s worksite.”

The guidelines also speak to the existence of local and state laws and statutes, such as California labor employment law, about which all employees should be conversant.

To summarize, transgendering has long passed the signpost of sensationalism. Rather, gender identification in any form has progressed from tolerance to widespread acceptance; and yet another indication of this is the release, this summer, of Becoming Us, an unscripted “docuseries” on ABC Family, documenting the life of 17-year-old Ben Lehwald of Evanston, Illinois. In the series, which is produced by Ryan Seacrest Productions, Ben’s father Charlie transitions to Carly. The narrative is told from Ben’s perspective as he watches his dad go through his divorce from Ben’s mom Suzy, before undergoing gender reassignment surgery.

In the grand scheme of things, washroom assignment (or reassignment) should be the least of a transgendered individual’s worries. Nonetheless, it is an issue that many states have been grappling with for some time - including California and labor law observed by the state. Now, the Department of Labor through the OSHA guideline will ensure that the rights of everyone are quite properly observed and respected behind the washroom stall.

Caitlin Jenner will use the women’s washroom. It’s only appropriate. And it’s also the law.

Stryker/Howmedica Agree to $3 Million California Labor Law Settlement

San Francisco, CA A labor class action rooted in California labor law has proven successful for plaintiffs following the announcement of a settlement between class participants and defendants Howmedica and Stryker. The settlement is worth $3 million.

According to court documents, lead plaintiff Tanner Trosper took exception to the fact that Stryker and Howmedica failed to reimburse sales associates for expenses such as mileage, telephone costs and other business expenses. Trosper, who worked as a sales representative for Howmedica from November 2008 through May 2011, held that such failure to pay business expenses was a violation of the California labor code and unfair competition laws observed by the state.

Trosper launched his California labor lawsuit class action in February 2013. The two sides in the dispute first met for mediation in February of last year, but were too far apart. Stryker also moved for summary judgment in the California labor employment law case, claiming that class members were employed by Howmedica of New Jersey and thus had nothing to do with Stryker. However, Stryker’s petition to the court failed when US District Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that Stryker’s ties to Howmedica extended to matters of employment.

The California and labor law settlement would see 134 class participants paid an average gross payment of $22,000 each. The settlement deal allows for an incentive award of $7,500 paid to Trosper, who worked for Howmedica in its Stryker craniomaxillofacial division. Howmedica was purchased by Stryker from Pfizer several years ago.

“The settlement represents a very favorable result for class members,” the parties said in their jointly filed motion. “Despite disagreement between the parties over the issue of liability and the amount of damages, the parties were ultimately able to reach an agreement that awards class members substantial sums.”

Howmedica had instituted various policy changes in 2011 and 2012 with regard to reimbursement of business expenses to sales associates. However, prior to those changes, Judge Koh ruled there was sufficient evidence of a “blanket policy” of not reimbursing sales representatives - a violation of California employee labor law - thus allowing the class action to move forward. Class certification was granted on May 27 of last year.

In 2012, a settlement in a separate action was reached between Stryker and employees in its endoscopy, communications and instrument divisions over business expenses and reimbursement protocols. That settlement was worth $4.25 million.

The most recent case alleging an affront to California state labor laws is Tanner Trosper v. Stryker Corporation, case number 5:13-cv-00607 in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

All Eyes on Pao v. Kleiner et al in California Labor Lawsuit

Sacramento, CA One would think that in this day and age the equality gap in terms of remuneration, opportunity and civil deportment between the sexes would be continuing to narrow. Many would go so far as to suggest that any inequality, of any degree and depth, has no place in modern society. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. Even basic labor and discrimination tenets governed by California labor law continue to be challenged in the workplace through misplaced and sometimes juvenile behaviors.

A California labor lawsuit that has been grabbing headlines of late surrounds a former employee of a top venture capital firm. According to a summary published in The New York Times Magazine (2/25/15), Ellen Pao alleges that her former employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, allowed for discrimination following the end of a relationship with a co-worker.

According to the California labor code lawsuit, Pao alleges that she was pressured into having an affair with a married colleague at the firm. After breaking off the relationship, the plaintiff claims discrimination and retaliation that affected her career. Specifically, Pao suggests that colleagues excluded her from important meetings and e-mail discussions on issues important to her work performance.

The bigger issue that has onlookers and industry watchers buzzing is the suggestion by Pao that the company maintains and allows for an atmosphere of male entitlement, to the detriment of female partners.

The defendant shot back that Pao, in its view, lacked “the ability to lead others, build consensus and be a team player,” attributes the defendant claims are needed for success in the venture capital sector. The defendant also claimed that Pao received bad performance reviews.

Pao alleges her performance was adversely affected by the atmosphere of male entitlement and discrimination, which remains an affront to California and labor law.

Anonymous respondents speaking with The New York Times Magazine suggested that the workplace atmosphere is 100 percent different for men than women, with women complaining that “you can’t take for granted you’ll be taken seriously,” said one. Studies suggest that women make up just 19 percent of angel investors and 6 percent of partners at venture capital firms. This is down from 10 percent in 1999.

California labor employment law carries various tenets, statutes and regulations designed to shield workers of either gender from unwanted or unfair discrimination.

Pao is currently the interim chief executive of Reddit.

The case is Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC, Case No. A136090, In the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.

California Overtime Law Class Action Seeks $5 Million

Irvine, CA An online real estate enterprise with an office in Irvine is facing an unpaid overtime lawsuit. The plaintiff, in fact, is seeking class-action status on behalf of over 100 hourly employees who serve as “inside sales consultants” for Zillow in the state of California.

The online enterprise was founded in Seattle almost nine years ago, and since that time has grown its revenue base to $291.9 million over the past four quarters, according to reports. Plans were announced late last year to expand its Seattle headquarters by 113,000 square feet through the addition of five extra floors, in order to meet the demands of what Zillow characterizes as “record growth.”

And yet, some employees allege they are being shortchanged…

Zillow opened an advertising sales office in Irvine two years ago. The office is staffed by sales agents who pitch Zillow “Premier Agent” adverts to real estate agents across the US. The work environment has been described as high-energy and high-pressure - likened to a “boiler room” - with long hours and a workplace atmosphere that is somewhat of a departure from a more traditional workplace environment.

It’s an environment that suits some employees, but not all. Plaintiff Ian Freeman thinks it’s an affront to overtime pay laws in the state.

According to the Orange County Register (11/21/14), Freeman alleges that Zillow systematically pressured hourly employees to commence work early, work late and also toil through their lunch breaks without any additional compensation, or so it is alleged. Former employees of Zillow interviewed by the Orange County Register noted the high-pressure environment, escalating monthly sales quotas and a daily blitz where employees, according to the ex-staffers, were required to stand for hours at a time dialing potential clients without breaks.

“It’s all about squeezing revenue out of the sales force,” said Isaac Cobian, 25, of Costa Mesa, who resigned from Zillow in August after eight months working as an “inside sales consultant.”

It is employees like Cobian that Freeman is thinking about with his overtime pay lawsuit, and why he wants to see it go forward as a class action. The Orange County plaintiff, who worked in Zillow’s Irvine office for two years until this past September, alleges in his California overtime law claim that Zillow used an automated timekeeping system that recorded an employee workday as extending from 8 am to 4 pm, regardless of the actual hours worked.

“Through various memos, meetings and methods of intimidation, Zillow demanded from plaintiffs and class members to begin work prior to the automatically recorded 8 am start time and continue working well beyond the previously recorded 4 pm punch-out time,” the lawsuit said.

The overtime pay putative class action seeks $5 million in damages. The case is Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:14-cv-01843, filed November 20, 2014 in US District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges violations against the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California overtime law.

Temp Worker Takes on Former Employer in Proposed Class Action

Los Angeles, CA A woman in California employed by a state-based temp agency has filed what she hopes will become a class action California labor lawsuit against her former employer over allegations of improper payment records.

Allegations of inaccurate wage statements made by plaintiff Tamara L. Bengel could affect upwards of 1,000 potential class members, according to her California labor code action filed earlier this month in California Superior Court.

The defendant, Career Strategies Temporary Inc. (CST), is based in Burbank but maintains satellite offices in seven states, including California. CST provides direct-hire and temporary staffing services to businesses and corporations.

Bengel alleges in her California labor lawsuit that she was paid weekly by CST for work she was assigned as a temporary worker. The issue she has with her wage statements is that her weekly pay stubs did not specify inclusive pay period dates, in violation of the California labor code.

The lack of inclusive pay period dates makes it impossible for employees going forward to accurately track pay stubs against calendar dates when work was performed.

Bengel, it has been reported, has taken two pathways to justice with her allegations. The first is a reporting of her allegations to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which Bengel is described as undertaking about six weeks before filing her California and labor law action.

The plaintiff also seeks to represent at least 1,000 other workers employed by CST in the state of California from a period beginning November 1, 2013 to the present day. She seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) of California. Bengel’s suit seeks statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. If an employer knowingly and intentionally fails to accurately itemize a wage statement, an employee can recover the greater of actual damages or statutory fines of $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation up to $4,000, according to the suit.

“Plaintiff and each class member suffered and suffer injuries as a result of the missing pay period because a reasonable person could not promptly and easily determine the pay period from the wage statement alone without reference to other documents or information,” the complaint says.

In her California labor employment law proposed class action, Bengel also suggests that her complaint could be amended to include other defendants, provided there is sufficient cause to believe that other parties may have been participating with CST in violating California labor law.

The case is Bengel v. Career Strategies Temporary Inc., case number BC565227, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Various Sides Line Up on California Labor Law Proposal

Sacramento, CA The various interests lining up and staking their positions in a new California labor law proposal are polarized in their respective points of view. California Assembly Bill 1897 (AB 1897) as of this writing remains on the desk of California Governor Jerry Brown for either passage or veto. Sponsors of the bill, which amongst other statutes will hold a business or contractor liable when a subcontractor violates the California labor code, claim it will help workers by promoting responsible contracting.

Business groups claim the proposed bill will serve as a business and jobs killer in California. Critics of the bill say that California labor law is fine just the way it is, thank you.

Under current statutes, a primary contractor cannot be held liable for the behavior of a subcontractor in terms of violations to California and labor law. The proposed bill would impose a certain degree of liability on the businesses hiring those subcontractors.

The proposed bill is a priority for labor unions in the state. Caitlin Vega, a lobbyist for the California Labor Federation, told the Sacramento Bee (9/22/14) that the new legislation will do a better job at holding contractors accountable to California labor employment law.

Business advocates hate it. “Worker protection laws in California are already in place for labor violations and should be enforced,” said John Kabateck, executive director of the California chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, in comments published in the Sacramento Bee. “The only thing this bill is going to do is hurt our state’s economy and jobs.”

That view is mirrored by blogger Andrea Deveau of TechNet, identified as “the national, bipartisan network of innovation economy CEOs and senior executives.”

Deveau, identified as the Executive Director of TechNet, notes in the Fox&Hounds blog (9/26/14) that AB 1897 will impact a California labor lawsuit in that an employee that alleges a violation to have occurred would only be able to litigate against the third-party business, and not against the employer that actually (and allegedly) committed the violation. Business groups view this as unfair and misguided.

However, a respondent to the Fox&Hounds blog noted a multi-year relationship with small sub-contractors. The respondent noted that there was rarely, if ever, overtime paid for work performed beyond an eight-hour day or a 40-hour week. The respondent also noted that whenever a California labor lawsuit was launched, the small subcontractor would simply file for bankruptcy and shut down in an effort to avoid the litigation, only to soon resurface under a different business name and address.

AB 1897, say advocates, will improve adherence to California state labor laws by requiring businesses and contractors to have a stake in the behavior of their subcontractors, and in so doing provide better oversight - and perhaps make better choices in the subcontractors they hire.

“This bill is really about promoting responsible contracting,” lobbyist Vega said, in comments published in the Sacramento Bee. “This bill is going to help the companies that are following the law and being responsible, and this bill is going to help get companies out of the business that have a model of cheating workers.”

The other proposed bill to land on Governor Brown’s desk would prohibit contracts containing a clause requiring an individual to waive all rights to pursue a California labor lawsuit regarding a civil rights claim. The California Chamber of Commerce doesn’t like that one, either…

SpaceX Faces California Labor Lawsuits

Hawthorne, CA In the latest California labor lawsuit to be filed, SpaceX faces allegations that it violated California labor law. Although the company is involved in rocket manufacturing and the space industry, allegations are that the company violated some earthly California labor codes, including laws guaranteeing California employees meal and rest breaks.

According to the Los Angeles Times (8/12/14), lawsuits have been filed against SpaceX alleging the company violated various labor laws. One lawsuit alleges the company violated state law by not providing meal and rest breaks and by forcing employees to work off the clock. The lawsuit alleges employees were not only denied their breaks, they were not paid for those missed breaks.

Court documents filed in the case note that class members regularly worked more than five and 10 hours a day without being given first and/or second uninterrupted meal periods. Employees were also allegedly subject to “…pressure from SpaceX’s management and supervisors to perform work at the expense of their meal and rest periods…” That pressure included denying a “significant number” of employees’ first meal periods and refusal to allow second meal periods on shifts of over 10 hours.

The lawsuit alleges that shift and production schedules did not provide employees with proper opportunities to take their breaks, even though employees did not waive their right to a break. Labor laws require employers in California to provide one 30-minute meal break for non-exempt employees whose shift is more than five hours and a second 30-minute break for shifts of more than 10 hours per day (under certain circumstances, the second 30-minute break can be waived).

“On certain weekend shifts, SpaceX also required Plaintiff and the Class Members to choose between taking a single meal period or receiving two rest periods…” court documents note.

Furthermore, according to the lawsuit, employees were not compensated for time worked, including overtime worked, when their hours were rounded down, which also resulted in inaccurate wage statements.

The lawsuit seeks to represent non-exempt current or former employees, estimated in court documents to be more than 100 individuals.

A different lawsuit filed in August alleges SpaceX illegally laid off hundreds of employees without providing them with proper notice or compensation.

The wage and hour lawsuit is Smith v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., et al, case number BC554258 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

California Employees Paid Commission Take Note…

Los Angeles, CA A recent California Supreme Court decision in a wage and hour lawsuit affects California labor law regarding commission wages.

The class-action lawsuit was initially filed over five years ago in California state court. Plaintiff Susan Peabody, a former account executive at Time Warner Cable Inc., sold advertising on the company’s cable television channels. She claimed the huge cable company violated California overtime law by using employees’ commissions to meet minimum wage requirements.

Time Warner paid Peabody an hourly wage of $9.61 per hour based on a 40-hour workweek. As well, the company paid commission wages under its account executive compensation plan, which brought her wages up to about $75,000 in the 10 months she was employed for the company.

But Peabody claimed she often worked more than 45 hours per week and never received overtime pay. Further, for the pay periods in which she received only her hourly wages, she earned and was paid less than the minimum wage. Time Warner’s justification was that Peabody, as an inside salesperson, was exempt from overtime compensation. This exemption applies if employee’s earnings must exceed one and one-half times (1.5) the minimum wage, and more than half of the employee’s compensation must represent commissions, according to the California labor code.

However, the majority of Peabody’s paychecks comprised only hourly wages and equated to less than 1.5 times the applicable minimum wage during that time period. Peabody argued that she was misclassified as exempt because she collected commissions in only some pay periods and she did not earn one and one-half times the minimum wage as required by federal law and California law for her overtime work.

According to Justia.com, Time Warner argued that commissions should be calculated to the weeks of the monthly pay period in which they were earned and not to the pay period in which they were paid. So paying commission over multiple pay periods would have satisfied the inside sales exemption.

In August of 2012, the case was sent to the California Supreme Court to appeal the 2009 decision, and to answer the question:
To satisfy California’s compensation requirements, whether an employer can average an employee’s commission payments over certain pay periods when it is equitable and reasonable for the employer to do so.

The Supreme Court held that an employer may not attribute commission wages paid in one pay period to other pay periods in order to satisfy California’s compensation requirements. (The case is Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2012 WL 3538753 (9th Cir. 2012).)

Affected Workers Try to Put the Kibosh in Bosch Attempt to Dismiss

Sacramento, CA As California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su announced a statewide, multilingual campaign to educate workers and employers about the crime of wage theft and other issues related to California labor law, a putative class of Robert Bosch LLC employees pushed to keep alive a lawsuit that accused the employer of underpaying workers Bosch transferred to the US from India.

There are also allegations that Bosch directed the foreign workers to repay tax refunds. The defendant attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed. However, the plaintiffs argued in California federal court last month against the granting of any motion to dismiss.

According to court documents, the lead plaintiff in the case was hired by the American subsidiary of Robert Bosch GmbH as an engineer and came to the US from India on a work visa. Suraj Kamath alleged in his November 2013 lawsuit that Bosch announced in 2012 that all non-US citizens employed by the company were required to repay all tax refunds across a four-year period from 2006 to 2011. The employer, according to plaintiff documents, remitted income payments on behalf of non-US citizens to taxation authorities.

“Bosch informed plaintiff that, if he did not sign a form declaration promising to pay Bosch the full amount of his tax refunds, Bosch would fire him, require him to return to India, make his life miserable, make sure that his life and career would be destroyed, make sure that he would not find another job anywhere and pursue criminal and civil lawsuits against him,” the complaint said.

The California labor lawsuit is Suraj Kamath v. Robert Bosch LLC et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-08540, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.

Meanwhile, the state’s driven labor commissioner is taking adherence to the California labor code to new heights with an awareness campaign that is intended to bring the message of fair and equitable pay and working conditions to low-wage workers throughout California.

“Immigrant workers in low-wage industries are especially vulnerable to wage theft, but may not be aware of their rights, may fear retaliation, or may mistakenly believe that they are not protected,” said Labor Commissioner Su, in comments published in an official state news release (4/30/14). “Another barrier is lack of trust in government or understanding of how the Labor Commissioner’s office can help. This campaign aims directly at these barriers by dispelling myths and educating workers on how to fight wage theft.”

The awareness campaign, which will be distributed through print, electronic and social media, is an addendum to increased enforcement of California labor employment law by Su’s office and that of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which falls under the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).

Violations to California and labor law not only cheat an employee out of earned pay, meal breaks and rest periods, but also provide the company responsible with an unfair advantage over those competitors abiding by the rules.

“The mission of the Department of Industrial Relations is to protect all workers with comprehensive labor laws and proactive enforcement throughout the state,” said Christine Baker, DIR Director. “This campaign increases familiarity with workers’ rights and employer’s responsibilities, and supports our efforts to level the playing field for law-abiding businesses.”

When the California labor code is not followed, a California labor lawsuit often results.