UPDATE: California Labor Commissioner Amends Recently-Issued Guidance Regarding Wage Theft Prevention Act

Last week, we reported that the California Labor Commissioner issued a template "Notice to Employee" as required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 (the "Act"), which went into effect January 1. The Act requires employers to furnish specified wage information to certain non-exempt employees at the time of their hire.

As we also pointed out, the Commissioner's "Frequently Asked Questions," published December 30, 2011, stated that the Notice (or the information contained therein) must be given to all current employees, despite the fact that the statute calls only for employers to provide such data to employees "at the time of hiring." We placed a call to the DLSE shortly after the FAQs were issued, and the agency responded yesterday by updating its Web site. The FAQs, which can be found here, now reflect that the information required under new Labor Code § 2810.5 need only be provided at the time of hiring and within 7 days of a change in such information, if the change is not listed on the employee's pay stub for the following pay period.

We expect the DLSE to encounter resistance from employers and their representatives even despite the issuance of the revised FAQs, as the agency's template arguably requires employers to disclose information beyond that mandated by the statute, such as the employer's business type (e.g., sole proprietorship, corporation, limited liability company, professional employer organization), whether there is an oral or written employment agreement, the employer's workers' compensation insurance policy number, and a statement that the employee's signature on the Notice "merely constitutes [an] acknowledgement of receipt." For now, though, the template is available on the DLSE's Web site in Word and pdf forms.

California Labor Commissioner Issues Long-Awaited Guidance On Wage Theft Prevention Act

Please visit the update to this entry, available here.

On the eve of the implementation of California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011, the California Labor Commissioner has made available to employers a template Notice (Word / pdf) that complies with the requirements of new Labor Code § 2810.5. Beginning January 1, 2012, Section 2810.5 requires employers to furnish specified wage information captured by the Notice to most non-exempt employees. All required information must be provided to employees in the language that the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information.

Just today, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) posted “Frequently Asked Questions” about the Notice on its website. It is important to note that although the text of Labor Code § 2810.5 only requires employers to provide the specified wage data to employees “at the time of hiring,” the FAQs state that notice should be given to all current employees, in addition to new employees as they are hired. Moreover, while employers are not required to use the Labor Commissioner’s template form, they must include all of the information requested by the template and not require their employees to “piece together” the information from several sources. Employers can furnish their notices electronically, provided that systems are in place for workers to acknowledge receipt of the notice and to print copies if desired. An employee’s signature on the notice constitutes merely an acknowledgement of receipt, and is not tantamount to any type of written agreement between the employer and employee.

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a number of bills addressing a wide array of issues that could significantly impact employers in 2012. Click here to read more about the Wage Theft Prevention Act and other new laws.

Talent Agencies Act Applies To Personal Managers As Well As Agents

Marathon Entm’t, Inc. v. Blasi, 42 Cal. 4th 974 (2008)

Marathon Entertainment and Rosa Blasi entered into an oral contract by which Marathon would serve as Blasi’s personal manager in exchange for 15% of Blasi’s earnings from entertainment employment obtained during the course of the contract. Marathon sued Blasi after she reneged on her agreement to pay 15% of her earnings to Marathon. Blasi obtained a stay of the action and filed a petition with the Labor Commissioner alleging that Marathon had violated the Talent Agencies Act by soliciting and procuring employment for Blasi without a talent agency license. The Labor Commissioner agreed with Blasi, voided the parties’ contract and barred Marathon from recovery. Marathon appealed the Labor Commissioner’s ruling to the superior court for a trial de novo where Blasi’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The court of appeal reversed in part, holding that under the law of severability of contracts, it was possible that Blasi’s obligation to pay Marathon could be severed from any unlawful parts of the management agreement. The California Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment, remanding the action for further proceedings.
 

Housekeeper's Award Of $70,000 For Unpaid Wages Is Affirmed

Gonzalez v. Beck, 2007 WL 4532647 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2007)
Josepha Gonzalez worked as a caregiver and housekeeper for the Beck Family. Upon the termination of her employment, she filed a claim for unpaid wages with the California Labor Commissioner. When the Becks failed to answer or appear at the administrative hearing, Gonzalez obtained an award of $70,238.54 (including interest and penalties) from the Commissioner upon which judgment was subsequently entered. The Becks’ motion to set aside the judgment was denied by the trial court on the ground that they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under Labor Code § 98(f), which requires defendants to move to set aside the award before the Commissioner prior to seeking judicial relief from a default. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Cf. McCoy v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 4th 225 (2007) (claim for waiting-time penalties is subject to one-year rather than four-year statute of limitations).