Wage Attorney on Rounding – California just came down with another big court decision. This one involves lots and lots of chocolate. In See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court the California Court of Appeal addressed whether it is legal for an employer to round it’s employee’s time clock entries to the nearest tenth of an hour.
In See’s Candy, Plaintiff was employed in a non-exempt hourly positon by See’s Candies Shops. She filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit. The trial court granted her summary adjudication motion and dismissed four of See’s affirmative defenses. See’s challenged the dismissal of two of the defenses related to it’s policy of rounding employee punch in and out times to the nearest tenth of an hour.
How did this rounding policy work? For example, if an employee clocked in at 7:58 a.m., the system rounds the time to 8:00 a.m., and if the employee clocked in at 8:02 a.m., the system rounds down the entry to 8:00 a.m. The plaintiff argued that this rounding policy violated CA Labor Code sections 204 and 510 because the employees were shorted small amounts of wages.
The Court determined that See’s argument had merit because there was no CA statute or case law related to rounding, so the Court looked to the federal regulatory standard in the FLSA. Under that standard, employers are permitted to use a rounding policy as long as it does not consistently result in a failure to pay employees for time worked. An employer may use a nearest-tenth rounding policy if it is fair and neutral on its face and it is used in a manner than will not result, over time, in failure to compensate employees for the time they actually worked. See’s presented evidence that its rounding policy did not result in a loss of wages to employees over time.
By the way, this lawyer prefers…no loves the dark chocolate marzipan. It will blow your mind. Just saying….
The California Supreme Court just came down with a big decision regarding employment discrimination. Employment lawyers across the state are describing Harris v. City of Santa Monica as a compromise between employee rights and business’ freedom to terminate employees. I find the decision fair, despite the fact that I was rooting for Ms. Harris.
Fair Employment and Housing Act – Pregnancy Discrimination
The facts of the case are relatively straight forward: a bus driver alleged that she was fired by the City of Santa Monica because of her pregnancy in violation of the FEHA. The City claimed that she was fired for poor job performance. At trial, the City argued that if the jury found a mix of discriminatory and legitimate motives in Harris’ termination, the City could avoid liability by proving that a legitimate motive alone would have led it to make the same decision to fire her. The trial court denied the City’s argument, and the jury awarded her $177,905 in damages and more than $400,000 in attorney fees. The Court of Appeal reversed, and the Supreme Court granted cert.
Supreme Court Decision – Employment Lawyers Say “Compromise”
“We hold that under the FEHA, when a jury finds that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating a termination of employment, and when the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order of reinstatement. But the employer does not escape liability. In light of the FEHA‘s express purpose of not only redressing but also preventing and deterring unlawful discrimination in the workplace, the plaintiff in this circumstance could still be awarded, where appropriate, declaratory relief or injunctive relief to stop discriminatory practices. In addition, the plaintiff may be eligible for reasonable attorney‘s fees and costs. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeal‘s judgment overturning the damages verdict in this case and remand for further proceedings in accordance with the instructions set forth below.”
As most readers can tell, the court was trying to make employers and employees happy. This decision permits employees to still bring lawsuits when the employer has a mixed motive, however limits the damages attainable.
Some plaintiff attorneys question whether the court adequately defined when discrimination becomes a “substantial factor” in workplace discipline. The high court’s opinion concluded that “mere discriminatory thoughts or stray opinions are not sufficient to establish liability” under state law. The justices refused to offer a more specific definition “given the wide range of scenarios in which mixed-motive cases might arise.”
All in all, this is just another day in the life of an employment attorney.
Branigan Robertson is a California employment lawyer who exclusively represents employees in workplace disputes. He focuses his practice on sexual harassment, wage & hour, wrongful termination, and retaliation. Visit his website at BRobertsonLaw.com or call his office at 949.667.3025.
For today’s post I thought I would highlight a recent sexual harassment case: Moran v. Quest Communications. In this case the jury awarded the plaintiff, Amy Moran, $4,292,710.
Let’s outline the facts in detail. I’ve copied and pasted much of it from an online copy of the appellate decision. I want to highlight the kind of behavior that qualifies as sexual harassment. Although a new trial has been ordered on some aspects of the verdict, this case highlights what a jury can do for a sexually harassed employee.
Moran joined Qwest (which is now CenturyLink) in early 2006. She was hired in a sales position and was compensated in base salary plus commission. By mid 2006 her managing boss had been replaced by Dennis Sherwood.
Sherwood seems like a disaster of a boss. He had received sexual harassment training at previous jobs and, according to an appellate brief, “recognized such harassment as a serious issue.” In a previous job, Sherwood tried to start an intimate relationship with a subordinate employee while she was a candidate for hire and after she was hired.