Hunter Pyle Law

05/03/2022

The EEOC’s Guidelines on an Employer’s Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation - Tanya Tambling

Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), individuals with disabilities are entitled to changes in the work environment, also known as “reasonable accommodations,” that allow them to enjoy the same opportunities in the workplace as individuals without disabilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodations under the ADA in order to address the rights and responsibilities of employers and individuals with disabilities regarding reasonable accommodations. Highlights from the guide are set forth below.

Employers are under a statutory duty to provide a reasonable accommodation in order to remove barriers that could prevent individuals with disabilities from performing jobs they might otherwise be able to do. These barriers might be physical or procedural. However, an employer does not have to provide personal use items that an employee needs both on and off the job as a reasonable accommodation. Examples of this include wheelchairs and hearing aids. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/04/the-eeocs-guidelines-on-an-employers-duty-to-provide-reasonable-accommodation/

04/13/2022

Retaliation against Employees for Requesting Disability Accommodations: Your Rights under California Law
-Hunter Pyle

Section 12940(h) of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has opposed any practices that violated the FEHA. Section 12940(m)(2), enacted in 2015, further provides that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation for a disability.[1] That protection applies regardless of whether the request for accommodation was granted or not.

Pursuant to these sections, employers violate California law if they retaliate against an employee who requests an accommodation. That is true both in cases where the employer grants the accommodation and in cases where the accommodation is denied. If the employee has a reasonable belief that the way in which her request for accommodation was handled was unlawful, and complains about it, and is retaliated against for doing so, that is also a violation of the FEHA. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/retaliation-against-employees-for-requesting-disability-accommodations-your-rights-under-california-law/

04/13/2022

Disability Harassment in California — Your Rights at Work
- Hunter Pyle

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers[1] from harassing employees, applicants, unpaid interns, and volunteers because of their “physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, [or] genetic information,” among other things. Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1). It separately provides that employers are liable when they fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. Gov. Code, § 12940(k).

Employers are strictly liable for disability harassment committed by their agents or supervisors.[2] State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1034. Employers may be liable for harassment committed by employees who are not agents or supervisors if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known about the conduct and failed to take “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1). Employers are also responsible for the acts of nonemployees who engage in disability harassment when the employers, or its agents or supervisors, know or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Ibid. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/disability-harassment-in-california-your-rights-at-work/

04/13/2022

Meal Break Violations in California: The First 5 Hours Rule and the Importance of Time Keeping Records
-Hunter Pyle

This post explores two questions that arise with respect to meal break laws in California: What is the “first five hours” rule, and what role do an employer’s time keeping records play in meal break lawsuits. As explained below, the California Supreme Court has resolved these questions in a way that protects workers and ensures that they get the meal breaks that they are entitled to underGear and Gavel law.

The First Five Hours Rule:

The first five hours rule is pretty simple. Under normal circumstances, if an employee works more than five hours in a workday, an employer must provide a 30 minute, uninterrupted meal break. In the seminal case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1042 (Brinker), the California Supreme Court clarified that this meal period must occur within the first five hours of work. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/meal-break-violations-in-california-the-first-5-hours-rule-and-the-importance-of-time-keeping-records/

04/13/2022

What’s in a Name? An Analysis of California Wage Statements and the Requirement that an Employer Provide both its Name and Address
- Natalia Ramirez Lee

“What’s in a name?” That was the question asked by the California Court of Appeal in Noori v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Solutions, Inc. (2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 957, 964. California Labor Code Section 226(a) requires employers to provide wage statements that list “the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer” each pay period. “Name” is undefined in Section 226(a). The California Labor Code further provides that “[a]n employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required […] and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone […] the name […] of the employer.” Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Section 226(a) seeks to avoid confusion by employees regarding the identity of their employer so that employees may quickly identify their employer when grievances arise out of wages, for unemployment insurance purposes and for income tax and pension purposes. Mejia v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., No. 217CV00570TLNKJN, 2018 WL 3198006, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (citing Paul D. Ward, bill mem. to Governor Brown re Assem. Bill No. 1750 (1963–1964 Reg. Sess.) June 24, 1963). Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/whats-in-a-name/

04/13/2022

Individual Liability under California Labor Code section 558.1: Some guidance from the courts of appeal
-Hunter Pyle

Until relatively recently, an employee could not recover damages for unpaid wages and other wage and hour violations from an individual owner or officer of the employer unless the employee could prove some other legal basis for liability such as alter ego liability. However, alter ego liability is generally difficult to prove and has been described as an extreme remedy that is sparingly used.

As a result, even if an employee obtained a judgment against a corporate employer, it was often difficult to collect that award for a number of reasons: the employer could have “hidden their cash assets, declared bankruptcy, or otherwise become judgment-proof.” See Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 588 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 1, 2015, p. 4; accord, Sen. Com. on Labor & Industrial Relations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 588 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5-6 [“the vast majority of wage theft victims received nothing, and those that received anything received little of what they were legally due”]. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/02/individual-liability-under-california-labor-code-section-558-1-some-guidance-from-the-courts-of-appeal/

04/13/2022

Independent Contractor or Employee? Why It Matters
-Hunter Pyle

In 2018, the California Supreme Court adopted the ABC Test for determining whether workers are independent contractors in the seminal case of Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. That test, generally speaking, is more favorable for workers because it requires hiring entities to prove that a worker (A) is free from the control and direction of the hirer; (B) performs work outside of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Otherwise the worker must be classified as an employee.

In adopting the ABC Test, the Dynamex Court noted that misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a very serious problem that, if unchecked, would “depriv[e] federal and state governments of billions of dollars in tax revenue and millions of workers of the labor law protections to which they are entitled.” That statement could not be more true, and this blog post explores just why that is so. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/01/independent-contractor-or-employee-why-it-matters/

12/11/2021

Hunter Pyle Law updated their info in the about section.

Hunter Pyle Law updated their info in the about section.

12/01/2021

NEWS

Hunter Pyle to speak about PAGA at Bridgeport’s 2021 annual wage and hour conference on December 10, 2021.

November 10, 2021 HTTPS://BRIDGEPORTCE.COM/BRIDGE2017/LIVE-EVENTS/2021-WAGE-HOUR-LITIGATION-AND-MANAGEMENT-SAN-FRANCISCO

The conference description is as follows:

The Wage and Hour landscape continues to shift, with major developments in federal and state law this year thanks to seismic decisions from the U.S. and California Supreme Courts, along with new legislation and administrative guidance. Bridgeport’s annual conference explores and explains in-depth, the critical and changing aspects of Wage & Hour law litigation. Expert panelists will discuss up-to-the-minute topics such as PAGA; Wage & Hour litigation relating to Remote and Teleworkers as well as Low Wage Workers, Dynamex and its implications for the gig economy; individual, franchise and joint employer liability; exemptions; and more. Successful trial counsel will share strategies for taking wage and hour cases across the finish line and winning. Panelists will also discuss the rules and approaches you can use to successfully mediate and settle cases, and how to make sure those settlements stick. The unique format for the conference will feature an explanation and then discussion of the aforementioned topics.

12/01/2021

Is Your Employer Paying You Properly for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks? Only If it Includes Nondiscretionary Pay in Your Regular Rate of Compensation. - Hunter Pyle / November 27, 2021

The California Supreme Court has clarified that employers must include both hourly wages and all nondiscretionary payments when calculating the regular rate of pay for the purposes of compensating employees for missed meal and rest periods. See Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858. The Court further held that this decision applies retroactively. Read on to see whether your employer might have been paying you the wrong rate for your missed meal and rest periods.

In Ferra, the issue was whether the defendant had properly calculated the amount of pay that was owed to employees who did not receive proper meal or rest periods. Under California law, when an employer does not provide an employee with a meal or rest period, as required by law, the employer must pay the employee one additional hour of pay “at the employee’s regular rate of compensation.” See Cal Lab. Code § 226.7(c). Loews Hollywood Hotel interpreted that phrase narrowly, and paid its employees for missed meal and rest periods according to their base hourly rate. It did not include any “nondiscretionary pay” in that calculation. Continuing reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/11/is-your-employer-paying-you-properly-for-missed-meal-and-rest-breaks-only-if-it-includes-nondiscretionary-pay-in-your-regular-rate-of-compensation/

10/19/2021

A WIN FOR WORKERS IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
-Hunter Pyle / October 19, 2021

The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law (HPL), along with co-counsel Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow (FJWW) recently received a favorable decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a case called Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (September 30, 2021, Case No. G057836). HPL and FJWW represent Isabel Garibay, a worker who intervened in the Uribe case because the defendant in that case was attempting to engineer a “reverse auction”-a strategic move whereby a defendant tries to settle the case by appealing to the lowest bidder. HPL and FJWW were able to block that settlement, returning the case to the trial court where they will seek justice and victory on behalf of the workers.

The underlying facts in Uribe are as follows. In 2015, HPL and FJWW filed a class action in Alameda County called Gama v. Able Services, et al. The Plaintiff in that case sought to represent a class of 20,000 janitors who were forced to use their cell phones for work-related purposes. (As a point of reference regarding the value of the case, HPL and FJWW had certified a class and subsequently resolved a similar case against another janitorial company for over $5 million.) Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/10/a-win-for-workers-in-the-fourth-district-court-of-appeal/

10/05/2021

Hunter Pyle to present at Stanford Law School 2021 Trial Advocacy Workshop

Hunter Pyle will be helping to teach the Civil Trial section of the Stanford Law School 2021 Trial Advocacy Workshop again this fall. Mr. Pyle will be assisting with the Civil Trial portion of the Workshop, at which second and third year law students present their cases to a judge and mock jury.

10/05/2021

Hunter Pyle to teach Wage and Hour Course at Berkeley Law School

Hunter Pyle will be teaching a seven week California Wage and Hour class to second and third year law students at Berkeley Law School in the Spring of 2022. The course will cover current issues and trends in wage and hour law. In addition to reading the critical cases, the students will also hear from leading practitioners and gain an understanding of what it means to be a workers rights attorney in the real world.

This is the sixth time that Hunter has taught at Berkeley Law. It is always an honor and a privilege to return to the law school from which he graduated more than 20 years ago.

10/04/2021

Immigration Status Discrimination is Prohibited under California Employment Law - Natalia Ramirez Lee / October 4, 2021

California law provides that employment law protections are extended to all workers “regardless of immigration status.” Cal Civ. Code § 3339. Furthermore, under California law, “a person’s immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability” and in a proceeding to enforce a person’s employment rights, “no inquiry shall be permitted into a person’s immigration status unless the person seeking to make this inquiry has shown by clear and convincing evidence that this inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law.” Id.

California’s Anti-Discrimination laws extend to immigrants, including undocumented immigrants. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028. On July 1, 2018, new regulations from California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council (“FEHC”) clarified that discrimination based on immigration status is prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028. In particular, through the 2018 regulations, the FEHC sought to make clear that immigration status discrimination is a subset of discrimination based on national origin.

Under FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” due to their national origin. Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(a). The 2018 regulations explicitly state that under FEHA the “national origin” protected category encompasses an employee’s immigration status. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028(f)(3). An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant due to immigration status, must demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that such discrimination is “required in order to comply with federal immigration law.” Id. Additionally, citizenship requirements that are a pretext for discrimination or serve the purpose of discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of national origin or ancestry are unlawful. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028(h). Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/10/immigration-status-discrimination-is-prohibited-under-california-employment-law/