Being an employer is a daunting task. Hundreds of employment regulations, insurance guidelines, Senate bills and Federal Acts (such as FMLA, FLSA, HIPAA, TEFRA and FEHA, to name a few) distract business owners from focusing on their core operations and profitability. In particular, California employers need to be aware that California Labor Law differs from federal law in significant ways that can make life even more difficult, if not downright treacherous, for businesses with limited human resources expertise.

Although the Fair Labor Standards Act sets a minimum standard of protection for employees working in the USA, individual states are permitted to extend the Act to provide a higher degree of protection to employees in that state. California has taken full advantage of that facility, and there are many aspects of this act that California has applied more liberally than practically any other state.

Take overtime law for example. California law requires an employer to pay an employee overtime after 8 hours work in one day at 1.5 times the normal rate, and after 12 hours work in any one day at twice the standard rate. However, this does not apply to 'exempt' employees, such as those involved in managerial or intellectual work. Federal law only requires time and a half to be paid for any time worked over 40 hours in a week.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) differs profoundly from the federal law, particularly in employment discrimination law where it is much wider reaching and more rigorous than federal law. A case in point occurred recently, where an employee of a prestigious California hotel filed a discrimination lawsuit against his employer on the basis of sex, and also for retaliation, in violation of the FEHA.

The act forbids discrimination against an employee on the basis of sex, race, color, age, religion and other grounds, and illegalizes retaliation by the employer against an employee carrying out a 'protected' activity such as filing a charge of discrimination. There are a number of defined protected activities, and this act is likely beyond the capability of the average human resources department of most companies to handle. This is the sort of case best passed on to a human resources (HR) consulting firm.

The case, Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, had originally been heard in front of a jury, and debated whether or not an individual could be held personally responsible for proceedings relating to retaliation against an employee. The jury decided for the plaintiff and awarded compensation against the Lodge and the supervisor accused of the retaliation. However, their verdict was overruled by the judge who stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case against the supervisor that an adverse reaction had been carried out for reasons of discrimination or retaliation for the sexual orientation of the plaintiff.

The judge stated that individuals (the supervisor) cannot be held liable for retaliation in the same way that they can be for harassment. The case went to the Court of Appeal, which disagreed with the judge, and stated that individuals can be held responsible for retaliation. The case ultimately reached the California Supreme Court which disagreed, stating that the individual cannot be held responsible..

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next