California Labor Law: Independent Contractor vs Employee Misclassification—Attorney Weighs In

Oakland, CA Workers can be "classified" (designated) as employees or independent contractors. "With the California labor law there is a presumption that workers are employees," says Leonard Emma of The Law Office of Randall Crane, and the burden is on employers to demonstrate that workers are independent contractors. Emma explains how improper classification of workers as independent contractors has far-reaching consequences.

If you are an employer and have misclassified your workers as independent contractors, you could owe the Internal Revenue Service a big chunk of change in employment taxes for your workers. "You may also be liable to the worker for reimbursement of business expenses, overtime pay, meal and rest period violations, and other damages and penalties," says Emma. Conversely, if you have a solid basis to classify workers as independent contractors, you can significantly decrease your overhead.

"In California, classification of workers as independent contractors or employees ultimately comes down to the degree of control exerted by the employer over the worker - the more control that an employer exerts, the more likely the worker is an employee," says Emma. So the more you are told what to do and how to do it, the more you resemble an employee. Emma also points out that a signed contract stating that the worker is an independent contractor does not determine the matter; "Courts look beyond the contract to the actual conduct of the parties."

In addition to "control," California Courts consider other factors in determining whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or independent contractor. The following factors, among others, suggest that you are an employee and not an independent contractor:

1. You perform work that comprises the core business of the employer and is not a distinct occupation or business from that of the employer. "For example, if you are a cab driver working at a taxi company, then your occupation is not distinct from that of the employer and actually comprises the core business of the employer. That suggests an employment relationship," says Emma.

2. The employer supplies the instrumentalities, tools and the place for you. "If you work from the employer's office and make use of the employer's computers, machinery and infrastructure, then you are more likely to be an employee," explains Emma.

3. You are not permitted to subcontract or hire employees of your own to complete the work. "If you are not permitted to outsource your work to others or employ helpers, then you may not be truly independent and may actually be an employee," notes Emma. "Similarly, if you have no opportunity to profit from effective management of your business, then you may not truly be operating an independent business and may actually be an employee."

4. You perform the same work as employees. "If you find yourself doing the same work as employees and reporting to the same managers as employees, then you are probably also an employee."

5. You work at-will, on a full-time basis, for an extended period of time. "Independent contractors are typically engaged by employers on a project-basis or for a limited period of time specified by contract. If you have been working full-time for months or years without any specified termination date, then you resemble an employee and may be misclassified," explains Emma.

6. You are paid the same amount on a regular interval without submitting invoices. Emma says that "Independent contractors typically bid on projects or specify an hourly rate and then submit invoices to the employer. Employees, on the other hand, simply show up to work and are paid for their time on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. If you are routinely paid the same amount without having to submit invoices and regardless of the project or work your are performing, then you are more likely to be an employee."

7. You work exclusively for one employer on a full-time basis. Emma explains that "Independent businesses typically provide services to multiple customers and clients at any given time. If you work exclusively for one employer on a full-time basis, this fact suggests an employment relationship."

The following factors that suggest you are an independent contractor:

1. Your work is distinct from that of the employer.
2. You supply the materials, tools and place to work.
3. You have invested in your own equipment.
4. You have employees.
5. Your work requires a special skill or license.
6. Your contract is on a project basis or for a limited time period.
7. You have other customers/clients.
8. You can increase or decrease your profits based on managerial decisions.

If you are classified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, you should consider whether the classification is in your best interest. "California is progressive and has many laws that protect employees that do not apply to independent contractors," says Emma. "These include minimum wage laws, overtime laws, meal and rest period laws and many others. Most workers are unaware of their rights in the workplace." By selecting a lawyer instead of representing yourself at a government agency hearing, the lawyer can investigate your situation and assert claims on your behalf that you are not aware of. A lawyer will also know how to maximize the value of your claims. "For example, you may believe that you are misclassified and owed $1,000 for missed meal breaks," explains Emma.

"However, if an attorney were to review your case, he or she might find additional claims that you are not aware of such as unpaid overtime claims, missed rest periods, claims against the employer for failing to reimburse you for business expenses, and various other penalties and damages. In this example, if you were to proceed on your own, the government would only consider what you originally claimed (i.e., that $1,000) and nothing more." Most employment attorneys take cases on a contingency basis. "If you think you may be misclassified as an independent contractor, consult with a lawyer and find out where you stand," says Emma.

More about independent contractor misclassification from attorney Leonard Emma of Law Office of Randall Crane next week - stay tuned!

When Is Bullying and Harassment a California Labor Law Violation?

Sacramento, CA Although California was the first state to introduce anti-bullying legislation (2003), it is still prevalent in the workplace. "The most common forms of illegal harassment are from workplace bullies," says employee attorney Donna M. Ballman, P.A., "and they will stay a bully from playground to workplace." So when is harassment from your employer a violation of the California Labor Law?

"When the people these bullies pick on are in a protected category (e.g., gender, race, religion or pregnancy) that is when they step over the line," says Ballman. "Those are the categories that bullies tend to latch onto. They will also sometimes pick on someone in an emotional situation, someone in a delicate mental state and can torment them to death. You see how bullying affects kids and it happens in the workplace??"people can become suicidal or have a nervous breakdown." However, even if an employee believes he or she is being bullied or harassed by their employer, a supervisor, or a co-worker or they are in a "hostile work environment," they may not have a California labor law claim.

"If we don't accept bullying in schools, why is it acceptable at work?" says Ballman. When is bullying "unacceptable" and how do you determine whether you have a claim and what should you do about it? Ballman advises the following:

Report it:

One statement I hear of too much is "I was harassed, so I quit and then I told them why." This is a frequent mistake. The United States Supreme Court says that, where an employer has a published sexual harassment/discriminatory harassment policy, the employee must report it under that policy and give the employer the opportunity to fix the situation. If you did not avail yourself of the employer's policy before quitting, you are giving up your right to sue for a violation.

Employer's duty:

Appropriate remedies may be to discipline or warn the harasser, to move the harasser, under some circumstances to move the victim, to do training, or in extreme cases, to terminate the harasser. But they don't have to take any action at all. They only have a duty to maintain a safe workplace. You might still have to work with the harasser.

What to put in the report:

General harassment, hostile environment, bullying and other disruptive behavior that is not addressed to an employee for a protected status or activity is not illegal. So before you write the long letter airing all your grievances against your boss, you may want to have an attorney look at it, or just make sure you are addressing your protected status. If you do complain, put it in writing and call it "FORMAL COMPLAINT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT" or "FORMAL COMPLAINT OF RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT," or whatever category you fit into. Set forth the harassment due to your protected status, and be businesslike. This is not the time to air all your complaints about the business or your boss, only to air the specific complaint about the illegal behavior.

If you are harassed or are in a hostile work environment, make sure you understand your rights and responsibilities. Report it to the employer and give them a chance to address the situation. If they allow the harassment to continue or if they retaliate, contact an employment attorney to discuss your legal options.

Here are some tips from Ms. Ballman:

a. Many employees simply refuse to go back to work, even where the employer has warned or disciplined the harasser. Sometimes, the fear is justified. But it is the employer's duty to create a safe workplace. If you return and are retaliated against or continue to be harassed, report it again. If the employer allows retaliation or continued harassment, that is the time to get an attorney involved.

b. Employers will usually take accusations of this type of conduct seriously. Once they are on notice, they will be held liable if they allow it to continue, and they know it. And most employers know that this behavior is disruptive, has nothing to do with making money, and can adversely affect morale. Even if the employer takes no action, by reporting their inaction to the EEOC or your state agency, you have put these agencies on notice that this behavior is occurring. The employer will have no excuse when the harasser does it to the next employee. And in some cases, you may have a remedy.

c. While a long letter stating that your supervisor is incompetent or a jerk can and should get you fired, the formal complaint addressing illegal behavior should get a serious response.

d. While bullying isn't illegal, harassment due to race, age, sex, national origin, disability, color and religion are illegal.

e. If the bully is targeting certain age, sex, ethnic or other groups, they've probably crossed over into illegal harassment.

f. Bullies are a huge drain on corporate time and assets. Employers should adopt zero tolerance policies regarding bullies.

California Labor Law on Family Leave Receives High Marks in Study

Los Angeles, CA According to a recent study, a California labor law concerning family leave has not hurt businesses very much, while a number of families have been able to improve their working lives, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The study was conducted by Eileen Applebaum, senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington, and Ruth Milkman, a professor of sociology at UCLA and City University of New York.

The researchers said that as a result of the new law, workers taking family leave are enjoying their jobs more.

"All the fears that this program would be disruptive to business were not well founded," Milkman said.

Implemented in 2004, the Paid Family Leave Act provides eligible employees with up to 55 percent of their typical earnings for up to six weeks, according to the news provider. According to the Employment Development Department, 167,523 people in California took time off for "bonding" with their child during the last fiscal year. Additionally, 23,220 workers took some time off to care for family members who were ill, the news source said.

The workers, on average, received $488 per week.

According to the Employment Development Department's Web site, employees who are covered by State Disability Insurance are also covered by Paid Family Leave insurance.

California Employer Sued for California Labor Law Violations

Napa, CA A class-action lawsuit filed earlier this year alleges that a well-known corporation denied its employees in California of basic employment rights under California labor law. Johnson Controls Inc. was served in March for allegations ranging from the failure to pay proper wages (including overtime), to the failure to provide proper meal breaks.

The complaint was filed in Superior Court of California, County of Napa.

According to court records, lead plaintiff Michael Evans worked for Johnson Controls in California. The plaintiff alleges that the Wisconsin-based corporation variously allowed him to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week, and more than seven days straight without overtime pay - an allegation of conduct that flies in the face of the California labor code.

The plaintiff alleges that he also, on occasion, worked in excess of 12 hours in one day without being compensated according to an elevated overtime formula normally expected for toiling that many hours - specifically, two times his normal rate of pay.

Meal breaks were also an issue, according to Evans. He claims to have worked in excess of five hours in a day without provision for a proper meal break. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant failed to compensate him for those missed meal periods in accordance with California labor employment law.

His class-action complaint also alleges the employer failed to maintain and complete accurate time and pay records, and allowed the plaintiff to pay business expenses during the regular course of his duties, but was not reimbursed.

When his employment was terminated, Evans alleges that he was not paid all wages owed to him at he time of his termination, nor was he paid wages owed for unused vested vacation according to the vacation policy of Johnson Controls Inc.

The defendant's alleged conduct is in violation of California state labor laws. Evans is suing for damages and his various legal costs.

Fired on Medical Leave—California Labor Law Violation?

Mission Viejo, CA Stan had to take time off work due to a serious health issue - he was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. But just a few weeks after applying for medical leave he was terminated, an action that is likely a violation of the California Labor Law.

"I was offered a position as outside sales and territory manager with this company in 2005 and everything was great. I was making $70,000 per year until I got sick," says Stan, who also said he worked more than a year for the company before he took sick leave. "I was off work just a few weeks when my boss phoned and said, 'Your service is no longer needed, and I have to let you go.' I figured they had reviewed my doctor's medical certification of my disability and didn't like the bi-polar diagnosis."

In California and nationwide, it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As well, the California Family Rights Act was established to ensure secure leave rights for the employee's serious health condition. It would seem that Stan's employer has violated the California labor code, but state and federal laws differ, and they are complicated.

"I called the California labor board when I was terminated and found out that my employer had lied," says Stan. "He said that I didn't report back to work when my medical leave ended, but he neglected to say that I was still on medical leave when I was terminated. He also lied to the unemployment office so it took me a long time to sort that out. Finally I was able to collect unemployment benefits, but here is the weird thing: My boss continued to pay my medical premiums into 2008 - for more than a year after I was fired and I have no idea why…"

Perhaps Stan's boss had a reason for paying his premiums or maybe it was simply an oversight; whatever the reasoning, an experienced labor law attorney will be able to advise Stan - but Stan should have contacted an attorney sooner as the statute of limitations may apply.

If you think that your employer has violated California medical leave laws, you can file a complaint with the federal Department of Labor (DOL), Wage and Hour Division within two years of the violation or file a lawsuit in federal court. In California, however, you must file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the violation, in order to be able to file a lawsuit under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), in addition to the FMLA.

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, an employer in California is not legally required to provide paid vacation or sick leave to their employees. However, employees have a legal right to take some paid time off but it's paid out of the state's temporary disability program, which is funded entirely by mandatory withholdings from employees' paychecks.

This is where it gets complicated: an employer can terminate you while out on medical leave. Even though FMLA and its California counterpart, the CFRA, protects employees from being terminated because they take a medical leave, it does not totally prohibit termination of an employee while they are on a medical leave. According to one interpretation of the California labor law, what really matters is why you were terminated while out on a medical leave, not just that you happened to be out on a medical leave when you were terminated.

Fortunately, if you have to take medical leave, your job is generally protected by federal and California employment laws. These laws also prohibit employers from terminating or otherwise punishing employees who take protected medical or family leave. If you think you have been illegally terminated while on medical leave, you should speak with a California labor lawyer.

Was Worker's Death Due to Ignorance of California Labor Laws?

San Francisco, CA The very premise of California labor law dictates a number of assumptions: that workers will be paid fairly, that they will be properly trained, and that they ultimately have a safe environment in which to work. The latter tenet appears to have been lacking in 2008 when a young mother met a horrible death at a California printing plant.

Margarita Mojica was 26 at the time of her death two years ago when she became entrapped in a box creasing and cutting machine. She was 17 weeks pregnant at the time with her second child.

California labor code, as with many federal statutes, dictates not only the requirement that an employer provide a safe work environment, but also that a worker has a right to protest if he or she feels at any time in danger while on the job.

It is not clear if the victim was even aware of the potential for disaster while simply doing her job.

According to the October 19th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland wife and mother of a young daughter was preparing a box creasing and cutting machine to start a job at the facility to replace a cutting die. According to prosecutors she was leaning into the machine when it suddenly activated and closed like a giant clamshell around her.

It is alleged that the owners of Digital Pre-Press International (DPI) of San Francisco were employing a previously owned cutting and creasing machine originally purchased in 2003. It has been reported that workers at some juncture asked to have a safety bar removed from the machine to allow for the handling of thicker cardboard. Investigators say the safety bar was not reinstalled.

While it is unclear if the accident would have been prevented had the safety bar been in place, there are a number of allegations that suggest workers at the facility were not properly schooled in safety protocols according to the tenets of California and labor law.

Regulators cited DPI on two previous occasions, in 1998 and again in 2001, for failing to maintain a worker safety program. The owner of DPI, Sanjay Sakhuja, is reported to have communicated to regulators that he had a training program in place by 2002; and an insurance inspection in 2007 found no problems with the machines at the facility.

However, following the tragic death of Mojica, state regulators under California labor employment law issued no fewer than 14 citations against DPI for not training workers properly. While the plant was reported to have a written safety program, workers told regulators they were never instructed on machine safety.

Sakhuja, along with pressroom manager Alick Yeung, have each been charged with manslaughter and willful violation of California state labor laws. A wrongful death civil suit has since been settled, according to The Chronicle. The value of the settlement was reported to be $6 million.

Pregnancy Penalty Violates California Labor Law

Sacramento, CA When Darlene was pregnant, her boss went out of his way to make her job uncomfortable, to say the least. Darlene says she was harassed, which is a violation of the California labor law, pregnant or not. But subjecting a pregnant woman to a hostile work environment is borderline criminal.

"When I told my boss that I was pregnant a few years ago, he began making comments that his wife was more experienced in HR and could do a better job than me," says Darlene (not her real name). "He said, 'Take as long as you want on your maternity leave because we don't need you back.' When I did take mat leave, he tried to take my position away and offer me part time work without benefits. When I objected, he said okay, I could have my job back. But when I returned, they took away all of my duties except payroll."

Darlene knew her rights, so she was able to get her job back after four months on maternity leave. By threatening not to reinstate Darlene after she returned, then offering part-time without benefits, and finally taking her duties away, at least three California labor laws were potentially violated as per the California labor code:

(d) Employee Status

The employee shall retain employee status during the period of the pregnancy disability leave. The leave shall not constitute a break in service for purposes of longevity and/or seniority under any collective bargaining agreement or under any employee benefit plan. Benefits must be resumed upon the employee's reinstatement in the same manner and at the same levels as provided when the leave began, without any new qualification period, physical exam, et cetera or other qualifying provisions.

"After he knowingly took away my duties, my boss would have meetings with my co-workers and me, basically to humiliate me," says Darlene. "He would ask questions in front of everyone, like, 'What do you do all day at work?' and 'What do you work on for eight hours?' In other words, he was looking for a way to terminate me without cause."

Unfortunately, Darlene's boss succeeded in ousting her, but only temporarily, because Darlene has filed a lawsuit against him and the company. "Because of the stress I had to take a leave of absence, but they terminated me within a few days," she says.

Adding insult to injury, Darlene says she just received a letter from the company. "Now they want to sue me for phone charges on a company cell phone they gave me, which I gave back when I was fired. Do they have the right to do this to me?"

That's another question Darlene's attorney can answer. As it stands now, she is potentially entitled to the following remedies that are available for violation of the pregnancy disability leave law:

- Back pay
- Reinstatement or front pay
- Injunctive relief
- Reasonable attorney fees and court costs
- Compensatory damages for pain and suffering
- Punitive damages

More from the California Labor Code as it pertains to Darlene:

§7291.5 Responsibilities of Employers

Discrimination by employers because of pregnancy constitutes discrimination because of sex under Government Code sections 12926…
(a) Employer Obligations

Except as excused by a permissible defense, it is unlawful for any employer, because of pregnancy of an employee or applicant, to:

(6) discriminate against the applicant or employee in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, except for non-Title VII employers, as set forth at section 7291.11, subdivision (a)(1)(A), below;

- Harass the applicant or employee because of pregnancy
- An employee who exercises her right to take a pregnancy disability 13 leave is guaranteed a right to return to the same position, or, if excused by section 7291.9, subdivisions (c)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(B), to a comparable position, and shall provide the guarantee in writing upon request of the employee. It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer, after granting a requested pregnancy disability leave or transfer, to refuse to honor its guarantee of reinstatement unless the refusal is justified by the defenses below in subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(2). If the employee takes intermittent leave or a reduced work schedule, only one written guarantee of reinstatement is required.

CA Labor Law: Fired While on Disability

Buena Park, CA Robert believes he was terminated because his employer and insurance company wanted to avoid paying his disability claim. According to Robert, even though his doctor stated he was unable to work, Pitney Bowes claimed that his doctor "didn't send enough information" to justify a wrongful denial and termination, and that is a violation of California labor law.

Even though California is an "at will" state, disability discrimination applies to "at-will" employees like Robert. Employers may terminate workers on the basis of any type of behavior they deem unacceptable, although laws and court interpretations of these laws have protected some types of behavior when the employer's retaliatory action is deemed: 1) a violation of public policy; 2) a violation of an implied contract between the employer and the employee; or 3) an act of bad faith. An act of bad faith is the recognition of an employer's duty to treat employees fairly.

"My HR representative told me that I had to go into the office and fill out a leave of absence… I asked him to mail the form. Instead, I got a termination notice in the mail". Is it illegal for a company to fire Robert for applying for disability benefits after his doctor said he couldn't work for a month?

"My benefits were cut off because my disability manager, who represents my employer, claims my doctor wasn't sending the current diagnostics that they wanted," says Robert. "But my doctor said they mailed and faxed and emailed them - and I have proof.

"Last October my doctor said my blood pressure was sky-high and my heart was beating so fast I had to take time off, at least a month. I even wound up in the hospital for 10 days - I thought I was going to have a heart attack. (Luckily my benefits covered the hospital bills, well over $20,000.) I was supposed to return to work in November but my blood pressure was still up and down so my doctor said I shouldn't return to work until August 2011.

"My employer terminated me in July. My HR representative told me that I had to go into the office and fill out a leave of absence.

"'I can't come into the office because I am disabled,' I told him over the phone.

"'If you want to mess up your job, that's up to you,' he said.

"I asked him to mail the form. Instead, I got a termination notice in the mail. Apparently the boss at HQ said they had to fire me because I left on my own accord and I 'abandoned my job.' I have that in writing. I told my doctor that my benefits were terminated two months before I was fired; she said that I should get a lawyer ASAP.

"Finally I got a letter from my insurance company stating that I could qualify for COBRA but I need to respond right away because my insurance through Pitney Bowes, which covered short-term disability, was going to end soon. But through my payroll deductions I had paid into insurance for long-term disability (LTD) for the past seven years.

"I believe I was wrongfully terminated because my employer didn't want to pay my LTD - and I believe that is a violation of the California labor code. I have the employer manual that says I should be covered and it shows how much I have paid into the policy. This is so frustrating. I am currently collecting state disability, which is only $640 every two weeks."

Many employees are shocked to discover the lengths their employers will go to in order to justify termination. In Robert's case, he was also denied a rightful disability claim. An experienced attorney can assist California employees like Robert in seeking some form of remedy for California labor law violations, including compensation, job restoration, applying for benefits and appealing on their behalf if their long-term disability claim is denied.

California Labor Law Violation: "Your Check Is in the Mail"

Martinez, CA Denise's co-workers and a few of her bosses made life so miserable for her that she had no choice but to resign. "The bosses accepted my resignation and, as per our contract, I gave three weeks notice," says Denise. "But the office manager said, 'Why don't you just leave now, because you were just fired.' I was in shock." The next day Denise asked if her final check was ready and the boss said it was sent by certified mail - a violation of the California labor law.

According to the California labor code, an employee who is discharged must be paid all of his or her wages, including accrued vacation, immediately at the time of termination. If you resign voluntarily, then California labor law requires that your employer pay you all final wages within 72 hours.

If the employer does not comply, California labor laws enforce financial penalties to employers called Waiting Time Penalties. California Labor Code 203 states, "If an employer willfully fails to pay…any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefore is commenced."

In addition to waiting time penalties, California Labor Code 218.6 provides for the awarding of interest on all due and unpaid wages at an annual rate of 10 percent. California employees can also expect to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs in any action brought for the non payment of wages.

According to Denise, she was fired. "When I gave my resignation, my boss said, 'As soon as you are done today, make sure you have all your appointments written down for us,' and my office manager also interpreted that comment as getting fired," says Denise. The next day she went back to work, to return the company phone and tie up a few loose ends, and pick up her final check.

"I finally got my check one week later. That is a California labor law violation," Denise explains. "The letter said I was fired as of April 28, not the April 26, which is the day I left. I believe they were covering themselves by changing the date two days later because they didn't have the check ready.

"The events leading up to my termination are a long story, so I'll make it brief. When I was first hired as supervisor of a number of group homes, I told the boss that I wanted to change a few things and he was all for that because they were money-saving changes. Right of the get-go I felt friction from the staff.

"I heard from a few co-workers that a lot of the staff were bad-mouthing me, including discriminatory remarks, such as 'white bitch.' (I'm white and the majority of the staff is black.) The bosses had so many discrimination suits against them already from firing people they were afraid to take any disciplinary action; they just told me to be careful and document everything. I had a number of complaints against me, saying I was rude. But the complaints were retaliation for cutting people's hours - I was just doing my job."

California Labor Law Basis for Federal Lactation Accommodation Health Reform

Washington, DC According to California labor law, nursing mothers who have returned to work have been granted allowances and protections for the purposes of nursing. This nearly decade-old section of the labor code quietly made it into the federal health care reform bill, allowing for California lactation provisions to serve as the model for the federal program.

"Today many women elect to return to work soon after giving birth," said California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet, in comments appearing in US State News on 5/13/10. "They want to be a valuable member at work and still be able to care for their newborn. Compliance with California's lactation laws is not only the right thing to do for these employees, it is also smart business because there are many cost benefits to employers."

While California Labor Code sections 1030 and 1031 were adopted in 2001, it's only been in the last few years that the provisions have actively been enforced. Because of a complaint filed by an employee, the Office of the Labor Commissioner has been initializing investigations. Companies known or discovered to have failed in providing lactation accommodation have been cited by the Labor Commissioner's Office.

"Many businesses discover that having an effective lactation support program is good for their bottom line," said Bradstreet. "These companies see lower turnover rates, a reduction in health care costs, higher productivity and worker loyalty."

Bradstreet also emphasized the need for employees to report violations of the lactation accommodation law, noting that it is not a law that can be addressed with enforcement sweeps.

California employee labor law requires that every employer in the state, regardless of size, must provide a reasonable amount of time to accommodate the expressing of breast milk, together with reasonable efforts to provide the lactating employee with the use of a room or other accommodate that would allow for the process to be carried out in private.

A restroom does not qualify for that purpose.

Ms. Bradstreet recently visited the White House as a guest of President and Michelle Obama. The lactation provisions in the new federal health reform act are almost a direct clone of provisions adopted in California. While various employers have been cited for violations of California's lactation law, the release did not specify the penalties faced by those employers in violation of the law.

In recent years the popularity of breastfeeding over the use of formula has increased, due to the increased health benefits for both mother and child. California was among the first states to enact such a provision.