With deep regret, Scali Rasmussen gives its condolences to the McKenna family. Mike McKenna was a dear friend, valued colleague and pioneer for California and Hawaii dealers. Mike leaves a legacy of dealerships and he will be greatly missed. Services will be held this Friday June 22, 2018 at 9 a.m. in Kailua, Hawaii at St. Anthony’s Church.
Dealerships are considered “public accommodations” under the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore are required to make reasonable modifications to allow disabled individuals the ability to access dealership facilities and services. This is not news if you’ve hired ADA consultants or dealt with an ADA lawsuit. However, while accommodations such as ramps, parking spaces and lowered retail counters may seem obvious (and call us if they do not!), new case law should put you on notice of another kind of accommodation customers may ask you to make: installing hand controls to allow disabled customers to test-drive a vehicle.
We all know the importance of tracking and compensating non-exempt employees for all time that they spend working. When an employee must travel for work, is ALL time spent on the road compensable? Here are the basics as pertains to non-exempt employees.
Although the California hourly minimum wage does not increase again until the beginning of next year, there are a number of local minimum wage adjustments effective July 1, 2018 that cover employees who perform work within those areas.
Finds labor laws protecting “concerted activity” no obstacle
Published on Thu, 06/14/2018 - 6:31pm
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a 3-for-1 opinion protecting class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements. This decision is consistent with the California Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling, in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, which also upheld the enforceability of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements, but carved out an exception for actions brought under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).
Here’s a familiar scenario: your counsel advises you about changes in the law requiring you to restructure your pay plans for certain employees, but when you distribute the new plans, one or more employees resist, complain, and refuse to sign. As addressed in our Coffee Break article published on this same date, No secrets: Prohibiting employee discussions about pay, you cannot prohibit these employees from disclosing and discussing pay information with each other. But as for employee resistance and refusal to sign new pay plans, read on for tips on handling this situation.
Revisions to California’s Fair Pay Act took effect in 2017. Billed as the “toughest in the nation,” the law made it easier for plaintiffs to sue based on gender-based pay differences for “substantially similar” work, even at different locations. For 2018, California law became tougher still, as employers are now prohibited from asking about an applicant’s salary history or seeking such information, and may not rely on it in deciding on a salary to propose, unless the applicant volunteers the information. The rationale is that because women historically have been paid less than men, requesting salary history (and basing compensation offers on an applicant’s current or prior salary) will perpetuate these differences.
Employers often seek to discourage conversations between employees about pay and compensation due to the distraction and potential morale issues that arise when such information is the subject of gossip and speculation in the workplace. Moreover, pay information is generally considered confidential personnel information that employers should protect as private. However, employers must beware of implementing or enforcing any policy that prohibits employees from disclosing their own pay, or discussing co-workers’ pay, as such practices can run afoul of both California and federal law.