tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51955317327501825512024-02-19T14:31:53.816-08:00Bryan Schwartz LawBryan Schwartz Law
www.bryanschwartzlaw.com
bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
CALL TOLL FREE 888-891-8489
FAX 510-444-9301
EMAILBryan Schwartz Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10509090710437656270noreply@blogger.comBlogger253125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-88774543782465844672022-04-19T16:17:00.000-07:002022-04-19T16:17:35.459-07:00New life for whistleblower-retaliation claims<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX8Xt2CGJHkgq74J2bqUMBvlugi6eIWvLR0-nozTmRk8i5wdEzxL4mTQW9MZdMrRqlv-uxwVe8oa2N5WF-IJEK7ajg5drB81dK-YDcqNGW6wzqsm7bdlEp1myQMEC6muHp_lYJRsBtvsC-BpsLBKugzcyZfJwVd11UGtrsWJr0dPsudq5F5hRaILb71Q/s1024/whistleblower-employee-concept-vector-illustration-vector-id1202959253.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="1024" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX8Xt2CGJHkgq74J2bqUMBvlugi6eIWvLR0-nozTmRk8i5wdEzxL4mTQW9MZdMrRqlv-uxwVe8oa2N5WF-IJEK7ajg5drB81dK-YDcqNGW6wzqsm7bdlEp1myQMEC6muHp_lYJRsBtvsC-BpsLBKugzcyZfJwVd11UGtrsWJr0dPsudq5F5hRaILb71Q/w362-h207/whistleblower-employee-concept-vector-illustration-vector-id1202959253.jpg" width="362" /></a></div><p>[This article by Bryan Schwartz and Cassidy Clark appeared first in the April 2022 edition of Plaintiff magazine.] </p><p></p><p><b><i>Lawson </i>and not <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> now provides the framework for litigating section 1102.5 whistleblower claims</b></p><p>California continues to affirm its commitment to employees who blow the whistle on their employers’ unlawful practices. Plaintiffs’ lawyers should take note. Favorable recent developments in California whistleblower retaliation law mean we should all be looking for potential Labor Code section 1102.5 and other whistleblower retaliation claims. </p><p>The California Supreme Court, in <i>Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.</i> (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, explained that the evidentiary standard to establish liability in whistleblower cases is different, and lower, than the <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> burden-shifting framework typically utilized in discrimination cases. Under <i>McDonnell Douglas</i>, the ultimate burden is on the employee – but not so, for whistleblowers.</p><p>Whistleblowing employees force a heavy burden onto their employers after demonstrating that protected activity was a contributing factor in an adverse action. Paired with the legislature’s clarification that attorneys’ fees are available in whistleblower cases, codified in Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (j), <i>Lawson </i>reaffirms the state’s public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.</p><p>Now, whistleblowers are stepping forward like never before, with a new awareness of health and safety in the wake of COVID, and social media increasingly available as a forum for raising concerns. Daily, whistleblowers impact global events, both with the war abroad, and at home, including at some of the biggest employers, from tech giants like Facebook to the federal government.</p><p>As plaintiffs’ lawyers, we are in the auspicious position to support whistleblowers and protect the public from employers’ harmful violations of the laws meant to protect us all.</p><p><b>California’s evolving statutory whistleblower protections</b></p><p>Many statutes protect California whistleblowers. For example, employees are specifically protected from retaliation for asserting their rights under FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12940, et seq.), filing a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner (Lab. Code, § 98.6), discussing working conditions (Lab. Code, § 232.5), complaining about workplace health and safety issues (Lab. Code, § 6310), using sick leave (Lab. Code, § 246.5), taking time off work for jury duty (Lab. Code, § 230, subd. (a)), among many other additional protected activities.</p><p>However, the most sweeping California whistleblower protection is Labor Code section 1102.5, enacted in 1984, which prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information the employee reasonably believes violates the law. The protected disclosure may be to a government agency, a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate or correct the violation. Under section 1102.5, an employee is also protected for refusing to participate in an unlawful practice. (Section 1102.5, subds. (b-c).) In California, “our Legislature believes that fundamental public policies embodied in regulations are sufficiently important to justify encouraging employees to challenge employers who ignore those policies.” (<i>Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.</i> (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77.)</p><p>In 2003, in response to “a series of high-profile corporate scandals and reports of illicit coverups,” the legislature passed amendments to expand the Labor Code’s whistleblower protections. (<i>Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 710 (citing Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 777 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.)).) These amendments included the addition of a procedural provision, section 1102.6. This section requires only that an employee show protected activity was a “contributing factor” under section 1102.5, by a preponderance of the evidence, before an employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons, apart from protected activities. With the addition of section 1102.6, the <i>McDonnell Douglas </i>burden-shifting framework was abandoned in whistleblower retaliation cases, according to <i>Lawson</i>. (12 Cal.5th at 709-710.)</p><p><b>What changed with <i>Lawson</i>?</b></p><p>After section 1102.6 became law, some California courts adopted it as a new evidentiary standard for whistleblower retaliation claims. (<i>Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 711.) But some courts continued to use the <i>McDonnell Douglas </i>standard, giving short shrift to section 1102.6. (<i>Ibid</i>.) Courts applying <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> to section 1102.5 adapted it to the whistleblower retaliation framework as follows:</p><p>First, a plaintiff was required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity, that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal link between the two. (<i>Morgan v. Regents of University of California</i> (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69). Second, the burden shifted to the employer to put forth evidence of a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. (<i>Id</i>. at 68.) And third, the burden shifted back to the employee to prove the reason was pretext for impermissible retaliation. (<i>Id</i>. at 68-69; <i>see also Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 710.) The <i>Lawson </i>plaintiff ’s case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court on summary judgment, ostensibly because he failed to prove pretext, under this third element. He appealed.</p><p>On appeal, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit noted that California appellate courts conflicted on which evidentiary standard to apply, the <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> framework or that outlined in 1102.6, and certified a question to the California Supreme Court to clarify this issue (<i>Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes</i> (9th Cir. 2020) 982 F.3d 752.)</p><p><i>Lawson </i>clarifies that section 1102.6, and not <i>McDonnell Douglas</i>, “supplies the applicable framework for litigating and adjudicating section 1102.5 whistleblower claims.” (12 Cal.5th at 712.) <i>Lawson </i>expressly disapproves state court cases relying on <i>McDonnell Douglas</i>-type burden shifting, including <i>Hager v. County of Los Angeles</i> (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1538, <i>Mokler v. County of Orange</i> (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, and <i>Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist.</i> (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378.</p><p><b>How <i>Lawson</i>’s reading of section 1102.6 helps plaintiffs</b></p><p>Once an employee shows that the
whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” to
an adverse employment action, the burden
shifts to the employer to demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence” that the
alleged adverse employment action would
have occurred “for legitimate, independent
reasons” even if the employee had not
engaged in protected whistleblowing
activities. (<i>Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 712.) This
means that the ultimate burden of proof
under section 1102.6 lies with the employer
to prove, convincingly, that the adverse
action would have occurred without the
whistleblowing activity.</p><p>The ultimate burden of proof in discrimination cases under <i>McDonnell Douglas</i>, to show pretext, is a heavy lift for many plaintiffs – as it was for the plaintiff in <i>Lawson</i> at the trial court. The Supreme Court in <i>Lawson </i>explains that even if the employer has a “genuine, nonretaliatory reason for its adverse action,” all a plaintiff has to do is show that the employer “also had at least one retaliatory reason that was a contributing factor in the action.” (<i>Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 715-16.) This recognizes the reality that unlawful whistleblower retaliation is often one of multiple reasons that employers can identify for their adverse actions.</p><p>The 1102.6 evidentiary standard is not focused on finding the one, “true” reason for the adverse action, as is the <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> framework. (<i>Id</i>. at 714.) Section 1102.6 recognizes the complexity of “mixed motive” cases, wherein employers may make decisions on the basis of both lawful and unlawful considerations. (<i>Ibid</i>.) <i>Lawson </i>says that section 1102.6 does not merely codify the “same-decision defense” under <i>Harris v. City of Santa Monica</i> (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203 in a whistleblower case – section 1102.6 provides the entire applicable framework for litigating and adjudicating section 1102.5 claims. (<i>Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 712.)</p><p>Some courts that referenced the section 1102.6 framework prior to <i>Lawson </i>applied a prima facie test akin to that from <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> as just the first step of their analysis. (<i>See, e.g.</i>, <i>Greer v. Lockheed Martin Corp</i>. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 855 F.Supp.2d 979, 988.) <i>Greer </i>equates the first step of the section 1102.6 framework (a plaintiff must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee’s whistleblowing was a contributing factor to an adverse employment action) with the <i>McDonnell Douglas</i> framework: (1) the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal link between the two. (<i>Greer</i>, 855 F.Supp.2d at 988.) The Supreme Court in <i>Lawson </i>described <i>Greer </i>as one of the decisions in federal courts that showed “widespread confusion” about the evidentiary standards. <i>Lawson </i>brings clarity, holding that section 1102.6 allows plaintiffs to establish liability under section 1102.5 without reliance on <i>McDonnell Douglas</i>. (<i>Lawson</i>, 12 Cal.5th at 717.)</p><p><b>Assessing potential section 1102.5 claims</b></p><p>When assessing a potential 1102.5 claim, we should be prepared to address some of the considerations unaltered by <i>Lawson</i>. We should always investigate: whether the employee’s belief that an activity was unlawful was reasonable; whether the employee disclosed the unlawful activity externally to a government entity, or internally to someone with authority over the employee or the power to investigate or rectify the violation; and, whether an adverse action occurred after the disclosure, setting up an allegation that the disclosure was a contributing factor in what occurred.</p><p>Recall that section 1102.5 protects not just those who report violations of law, but also employees who are perceived by employers to have engaged in whistleblowing activity even if they did not do so (subsection 1102.5(b)), employees who testify before a public body about a practice they reasonably believe is unlawful (subsection 1102.5(a)), employees who refuse to participate in activities they reasonably believe are unlawful (subsection 1102.5(c)), and family members of individuals who engage in activities protected by the statute (subsection 1102.5(h)).</p><p>The one-two punch of sections 1102.5 and 1102.6 is intended to encourage employees to come forward about the legal violations of their employers without fear of retaliation. We can deploy these statutes not only to protect employees, but to help rectify the many underlying concerns that whistleblowers are raising.</p><p><b>Section 1102.5 fees</b></p><p>Beyond <i>Lawson</i>, the relatively recent addition of subsection 1102.5(j) makes clear that courts should award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for whistleblower retaliation under section 1102.5, but not to a defendant who defeats whistleblower claims. Previously, if plaintiffs’ attorneys wanted to seek fees for whistleblowers, they had to do so under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys’ General Act (PAGA), or another statute.</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>Given the explosion of whistleblowing activity, coupled with new pro-whistleblower developments in California, plaintiffs and their lawyers are in a better position than ever to pursue whistleblower retaliation claims.</p>Cassidy Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11582612782359862890noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-85370441104313970612022-04-08T18:50:00.008-07:002022-04-13T04:46:26.642-07:00The Future of Workers’ Rights<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAQn5XUxC2ZjzUt1e2dwY3Dxz2riZT7HImhHVxYYj9byMmtETSaJWxxbejsxZIKngNNe_gBw5kJP7dRqV-QoGrWfvT738zgeB3vIM6ddr9xFZVLGiRH5_ZxEeIkvvJjOC-eH2E48uQrKCWlqHgAZ-wNSufCaNdke5MgOOaTUWgKw_Zg7J1x3Xp7OR3/s4649/4.8.22%20ALU%20blog%20post.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3099" data-original-width="4649" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAQn5XUxC2ZjzUt1e2dwY3Dxz2riZT7HImhHVxYYj9byMmtETSaJWxxbejsxZIKngNNe_gBw5kJP7dRqV-QoGrWfvT738zgeB3vIM6ddr9xFZVLGiRH5_ZxEeIkvvJjOC-eH2E48uQrKCWlqHgAZ-wNSufCaNdke5MgOOaTUWgKw_Zg7J1x3Xp7OR3/w460-h305/4.8.22%20ALU%20blog%20post.jpg" width="460" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>On April 1, 2022, workers voted convincingly to form a labor union
at Amazon’s facility in Staten Island, New York. Amazon’s fight against
unionization met its match, defeated not by well-funded external labor unions, but
by a low-budget, independent group, the Amazon Labor Union (ALU). The ALU spent
$120,000 on the campaign, raised through GoFundMe, defeating the trillion+-dollar
Amazon empire’s push to suppress worker organizing. The company </span><a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-anti-union-consultants_n_62449258e4b0742dfa5a74fb">spent $4.3 million in 2021 alone</a><span> on anti-union consultants to help keep its 1.1 million
workers disorganized and </span><a></a><a>disempowered.</a></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The workers voted 2,654 to 2,131 in favor of creating the ALU, the
first-ever Amazon union. The darkhorse victory grew out of the determination,
courage and conviction demonstrated by Christian Smalls and Derrick Palmer, who
had worked at the facility, and whose authenticity resonated during the
11-month-long union campaign. In the spring of <a>2020</a>, after learning organizing efforts were underway in their New
York City warehouses, Amazon launched a smear campaign against the organizing
lead, Smalls. Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky questioned Small’s
street-casual demeanor and called him <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/business/amazon-union-christian-smalls.html">“not smart, or articulate”</a> – unfounded stereotypes which reveal thinly-veiled racism
exhibited by the Amazon executive team. Amazon attempted to silence Smalls by
<a href="https://www.thecity.nyc/staten-island/2022/3/24/22995196/amazon-workers-staten-island-union-vote">firing him in 2020</a> after he led a walkout to protest COVID-related health and
safety <a></a><a>issues</a>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The termination sparked something in Smalls, and he and his
partner, Derrick Palmer, began their union campaign in earnest in early 2021. Concurrently, Amazon ran two major campaigns against unionizing
efforts in Alabama and New York City. <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-anti-union-consultants_n_62449258e4b0742dfa5a74fb">Amazon paid anti-union consultants $3,200 per day</a>, each, to host mandatory meetings for captive audiences of employees,
and one-on-one meetings with workers to turn them against the union organizing
efforts. The mandatory meetings were typically led by Amazon managers who
delivered scripted anti-union speeches and slideshows, but the efforts
backfired, when contrasted with Smalls’ grassroots approach.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Smalls organized workers by waiting at a Staten Island MTA bus
stop that brings workers to and from the LDJ5 Amazon sorting center and the
JFK8 fulfillment center. Smalls would wait at the MTA bus stop for hours at a
time, days on end – even after being arrested and accused of trespassing and
resisting arrest on Amazon property. The bus stop outside the warehouse became
a place of refuge for workers to enjoy Palmer’s homemade baked ziti, empanadas,
and West African rice dishes alongside a makeshift bonfire to warm colleagues
waiting for the bus in the cold. Meantime, Smalls and his team used
unconventional organizing methods such as Twitter and TikTok to raise money,
recruit legal representation, and gain supporters.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">The momentous victory of the ALU is especially important in the
light of the drastic decline in union membership in the U.S., which <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/18/majorities-of-adults-see-decline-of-union-membership-as-bad-for-the-u-s-and-working-people/">fell from 20% in 1983 to 10.3% in 2021</a>. Early unions’ intentions were to raise wages
obtain basic worker protections, and level the playing field. In fact, many of
today’s employment laws would not exist had workers not unionized.
However, despite these great ideals, anti-union campaigns and the unfortunate
reproduction of bias within some unions have been barriers to progress.
Gradually, as unions became more institutionalized, many workers began to feel suspicious
of them. Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island, the majority of whom are
young, Black, Latino, working class and urban, may not have felt that established
unions spoke for them.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Smalls, a 33-year-old Black man operating independently, and his
ALU, stepped into this void. When asked about traditional unions, Smalls said
he felt that established unions were <a href="https://www.thecity.nyc/staten-island/2022/3/24/22995196/amazon-workers-staten-island-union-vote">“disconnected</a></span><span><a href="https://www.thecity.nyc/staten-island/2022/3/24/22995196/amazon-workers-staten-island-union-vote">”</a> from innovative styles of organizing. To emphasize his point,
Smalls camped out at the MTA bus stop for 10 months as union president. The
ALU’s innovative use of scrappy resources such as social media, the MTA bus
stop, and makeshift advertisements made with tape and cardboard, may be revealing
a new era in workers’ rights. In the envisioned new era, leadership takes
nontraditional forms, where union presidents come from diverse backgrounds and
socioeconomic statuses, and organizing methods are no longer restricted to well-staffed
offices and dues-financed operations. Smalls, with his collection of tattoos,
gold grills, and former career as a rap singer, may be the future of labor
unions in America, an outsider to mainstream power structures driven only by
his passion to make people’s working conditions better. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Undoubtedly, advocating for your rights in the workplace is a
terrifying endeavor, especially against a giant like Amazon, but by harnessing
the strength of community, Smalls was not alone. What Smalls and his team
have shown is that this source of strength, plus some clever grassroots labor
organizing, can fell giants.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Bryan Schwartz Law stands unwaveringly with workers in advocating
for their rights. When such rights are violated, Bryan Schwartz Law will
empower workers to fight back. If you feel that your employer has compromised
your rights in the workplace, including your right to concerted action with
your co-workers, reach out to us <a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact">here</a>.</span></span></p><div style="mso-element: comment-list;"><div style="mso-element: comment;"><div class="msocomtxt" id="_com_9" language="JavaScript">
<!--[if !supportAnnotations]--></div>
<!--[endif]--></div>
</div>Patxy Cordovahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08888559740768148409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-81443904818041086232022-03-08T14:31:00.000-08:002022-03-08T14:31:30.649-08:00Reflections on International Women's Day<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjZ_QH3MrQU_EWtBbmGq4dXMG_w6E1OnxtTZ9vj2aPW4U1rjM3kUnJ_jFnXzEVKhGo7qgFdC0u5PEDzYs69OwjuvpYyWE0e4y6lFVHHhr1szpYehg-NS7AtcOQ_q0w_4VtN4YmxWrtkYM7hEAn8dkn7awgmge4kIoXIMLHh6Q9ZM1rEjBHNxy6sv61DDA=s1326" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="791" data-original-width="1326" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjZ_QH3MrQU_EWtBbmGq4dXMG_w6E1OnxtTZ9vj2aPW4U1rjM3kUnJ_jFnXzEVKhGo7qgFdC0u5PEDzYs69OwjuvpYyWE0e4y6lFVHHhr1szpYehg-NS7AtcOQ_q0w_4VtN4YmxWrtkYM7hEAn8dkn7awgmge4kIoXIMLHh6Q9ZM1rEjBHNxy6sv61DDA=s320" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><p><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p>Today marks the 111th annual International Women’s Day. Bryan Schwartz Law is an ardent supporter of women’s rights, and has fought for working women since our firm’s founding in 2009. Supporting women in the workplace means more than just remedying cases of gender discrimination: it requires us to support Black women who are discriminated against because of their gender and race, to support disabled women who experience the dual marginalization of gender and disability, and to work at all other intersections of oppression.</span><p></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-82fc78fd-7fff-2bb4-13ab-7a6ef01b8465"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Women today face a terrifying legal landscape, one in which women sometimes feel they take a step backward nearly every time they take a step forward. Emboldened by a conservative Supreme Court, more and more states are working to gut </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Roe v. Wade</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and return to a time where only women wealthy enough to take time off work and travel out of state are able to get safe, legal abortions. Young queer women across the South face new legislation that aims to literally silence the queer experience and queer history, while at the same time Texas has begun to criminalize parents who support their child’s gender, regardless of what their birth certificate says. Breonna Taylor’s killer has been acquitted, and Black women continue to live with an unacceptable threat of police violence. Women in Ukraine face unspeakable violence and displacement that grows every day.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And yet, amidst all of this, there are silver linings. Ketanji Brown Jackson is poised to become the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, an accomplishment that is both momentous and 233 years too late. The U.S. women’s soccer team just won a six-year fight to be paid the same as the men’s national soccer team, remedying a pay inequity that persisted despite the women’s team routinely outperforming the men’s team in the world’s biggest tournaments. Globally, eight countries swore in their first female head of state in 2021. And, President Biden just signed into law a bill prohibiting forced arbitration in sex harassment and assault cases.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bryan Schwartz Law is committed to partnering with and advocating for women, whether they have been paid less than their male counterparts, denied disability accommodations that would allow them to thrive, or terminated because they spoke out against inequities they see in their own workspace. If you are a woman who has been treated unfairly in the workplace, please contact </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bryan Schwartz Law.</span></a></p><div><br /></div></span>Dylan Colberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10094796108541779644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-58485578858126409392022-02-10T14:55:00.003-08:002022-02-10T15:05:01.683-08:00State of California Joins the Fight Against Tesla's Racism<p><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: medium; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg4v1T9DYAtVSfAnMFvb2sOnEK5hn7H5QAXR3jochAv85pSfJ-49Vs73-WFp7bDtuiv5cngxZU3CmRXltyYBhddGo7LF3ruZtxPYcrpoLldANNmpxXS3wBo_coYKs6VKqJcJqHZkg_dma9CzhuUX5UPJxdZK3bvN2RSOa7hEjDeTBJoI-199L10ADjC=s724" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="483" data-original-width="724" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg4v1T9DYAtVSfAnMFvb2sOnEK5hn7H5QAXR3jochAv85pSfJ-49Vs73-WFp7bDtuiv5cngxZU3CmRXltyYBhddGo7LF3ruZtxPYcrpoLldANNmpxXS3wBo_coYKs6VKqJcJqHZkg_dma9CzhuUX5UPJxdZK3bvN2RSOa7hEjDeTBJoI-199L10ADjC=s320" width="320" /></a></span></div><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial;"><br />The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has filed a lawsuit echoing the race harassment/discrimination allegations in Bryan Schwartz Law's class action against Tesla that we've been litigating since 2017, with the California Civil Rights Law Group. We are seeking to represent a class of over 3,000 Black/African-American workers at the Fremont factory.</span><p></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Many of our clients exhausted with the DFEH over the years, describing constant use of the N-word throughout Tesla's factory, graffiti like swastikas and KKK symbols, and much more. The agency's years-long investigation substantiating our claims finally culminated in the new DFEH lawsuit, filed yesterday. The suit documents inadequate responses by the company and its HR department over many years, and goes beyond our suit (focused on Fremont factory production workers), to all Black workers in different facilities throughout California.</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Tesla's public response seeks to suggest that the DFEH's suit makes allegations about matters that happened in the past - as though the company has improved its treatment of Black workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite having complaints of racist harassment and discrimination continually over the last 10 years, and most recently, being hit with a $137 million federal court jury verdict for a single worker proving these allegations, Tesla has not improved the work environment. </span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Tesla brags about its "majority-minority" workforce, but the fact that Tesla employs thousands of Black workers, many in physically-demanding, modest-wage positions, does not excuse the company's routine mistreatment of these workers. Black workers continue to deal day-in, day-out, with egregious racist harassment and discrimination, the N-word, physical attacks, and much more. As dozens of our clients testified in sworn declarations in court filings a year ago, many workers still call Tesla's Fremont factory "The Plantation," or the "Slave Ship," because of its resemblance to the American South during the era of slavery. Southern plantations that perpetuated slavery were "majority-minority" places, too.</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #500050;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It is shocking that this mega-tech company, presenting itself as the face of the future, with its focus on electric vehicles, solar energy, etc., is perpetuating racism that should be - but is not - a relic of America's troubled past. Cooperating with the DFEH, we will hold Tesla accountable for its shameful conduct.</span></div>Bryan Schwartz Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10509090710437656270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-70875734270378317752022-01-27T12:24:00.001-08:002022-01-27T13:39:39.086-08:00California Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Case Upholding Janitors' Rights<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgn_g1Q_X1UL-F22wL_Fo9JJrLI6Jvkp4QOC8x2_yLwN1M3ParqZqfDTJlG0-Q1l85dmc7-a5lqIy3xhRU-R07gqs0VtRPFyiMn4w7dtPRB4ZqiWgH2HLZ1HLoQxw-zKgl6USuwi0jS2Kw-ahITAs3EQjZyLg_3IlaG8GAlXPlbLODGytJ0H6qNWbI7jw=s5184" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3456" data-original-width="5184" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgn_g1Q_X1UL-F22wL_Fo9JJrLI6Jvkp4QOC8x2_yLwN1M3ParqZqfDTJlG0-Q1l85dmc7-a5lqIy3xhRU-R07gqs0VtRPFyiMn4w7dtPRB4ZqiWgH2HLZ1HLoQxw-zKgl6USuwi0jS2Kw-ahITAs3EQjZyLg_3IlaG8GAlXPlbLODGytJ0H6qNWbI7jw=w395-h263" width="395" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A group of displaced janitors just won a major victory. This month the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">SEIU-USWW v. Preferred Building Services, Inc.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, leaving in place an appellate court decision that affirms the rights of janitorial workers under the </span><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB350" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (“DJOA”)</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></span><p></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-161978b8-7fff-de6a-37c7-8cd401d26981"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The DJOA is an essential law that ensures that janitorial workers have the job security they deserve. If a building owner or manager terminates their contract with a contractor providing janitorial services, any successor contractor hired within 30-days must retain many of the janitorial workers employed when the contract ends for a sixty-day transition period. If the janitorial workers continue to perform well, the new contractor must then keep them on permanently. This law is a vital piece of legislation that helps janitorial workers have stable and fair working conditions.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">SEIU-USWW</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, a group of janitors sued the contractor who replaced their employer (also a contracting agency) for failing to retain them as employees. The plaintiffs’ employer had tried to avoid their obligations under the DJOA by effectively terminating all of the janitors they employed three days before the official end of their contract with the building. The defendant then argued that since there were no janitors employed at the time that the contract ended, the next contractor did not have to retain any of the original janitorial staff. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The court did not buy these evasive arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the original contractor's contract ended the last day that the janitors provided services, regardless of the date specified in their agreement with the building owner. The appellate court then upheld the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff janitors. The defendant contractor appealed, but the California Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, instead choosing to leave this victory for janitorial workers undisturbed. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now that the appeal has been denied, the appellate court’s ruling is final. This appellate court’s decision, and the California Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal on the case, should serve as a reminder to employers that they can’t get away with end-runs around worker protections. For employers that try to get around their statutory obligations, workers’ advocates are ready to fight back, empowered by strong statutory protections.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you are a janitorial worker and have been terminated or forced to resign after a change in contractors, please </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">contact Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div></span>Dylan Colberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10094796108541779644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-12869406193871696262021-10-29T16:45:00.000-07:002021-10-29T16:45:09.206-07:00The Jury Has Spoken: Tesla Liable for $136.9 Million in Individual Race Harassment Case<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">Owen Diaz was vindicated after
fighting back against the appalling racial harassment he endured at the hands
of Tesla. He won a resounding victory this month when a jury awarded him $136.9
million, including an </span><a href="https://richmond.com/business/labor-law-a-california-jury-gave-tesla-137-million-reasons-to-prevent-and-stop-racial/article_0ef89386-8b53-51ea-ae82-dd513a33c0a0.html" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">enormous
$130 million in punitive damages</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">. This verdict is </span><span style="text-align: justify;">one of
the largest</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">
</span><a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/tesla-ordered-to-pay-worker-137-million-for-racism-at-plant-1" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">of its
kind</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBb3b1tWBlTFu-DV4Jiagi5wa4Hr4lPLBoEHAGFaYuW6R0APCA7zF-nSTTsTKzGLxtGp7vG4XV-UC3ui5v7cWv3-9zZG4SXHDVSf6le40U0jUnlKkzbg4_2cWPZ8D4W00wmo_KPeSO6D6lNX_gp8WPl-zct9OD9aNPvwauaU3i-o3nWwCKRZLQmbR6=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1044" data-original-width="2048" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBb3b1tWBlTFu-DV4Jiagi5wa4Hr4lPLBoEHAGFaYuW6R0APCA7zF-nSTTsTKzGLxtGp7vG4XV-UC3ui5v7cWv3-9zZG4SXHDVSf6le40U0jUnlKkzbg4_2cWPZ8D4W00wmo_KPeSO6D6lNX_gp8WPl-zct9OD9aNPvwauaU3i-o3nWwCKRZLQmbR6=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Diaz, who is African-American,
worked at Tesla‘s Fremont factory as an elevator operator. Supervisors accosted
him using racial epithets frequently, including the N-word, and Mr. Diaz found
racist caricatures and swastikas written in the factory and bathrooms. Mr. Diaz
complained to management, which did nothing. Dismayed but undeterred, Mr. Diaz
courageously stood up to Tesla’s behavior “straight from the Jim Crow era and
filed a lawsuit against Tesla. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Tesla fiercely litigated against
Mr. Diaz over the four years that followed, but Mr. Diaz prevailed. Tesla
argued that even though Mr. Diaz worked at Tesla, followed Tesla workers’
instructions, and earned a rate of pay set by Tesla, that it somehow had no
responsibility to prevent the awful treatment he and other African-American
workers at the Fremont Tesla factory endured. The jury did not fall for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Tesla also argued that Mr. Diaz
had not shown any evidence of race discrimination, but the jury saw through
that ruse. At one illustrative point in the trial proceedings, Tesla’s attorney
asked a witness if the N-word was used in the workplace. After the witness
confirmed it was, Tesla’s attorney asked if the epithet was used in a <i>friendly</i>
way, completely failing to recognize that such degrading language has no place
in any workplace, in any context, for any reason. The evidence of race
discrimination at Tesla was so overwhelming that the jury returned an
unprecedented verdict with $130 million in punitive damages, finding that Tesla
intentionally violated the law. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Tesla </span><a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/tesla-ordered-to-pay-worker-137-million-for-racism-at-plant-1"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">forces
most employees to sign arbitration agreements</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">, which prevents them from
coming together to hold Tesla accountable for its discriminatory treatment and veils
in secrecy much of Tesla’s unlawful employment practices. Thanks to Mr. Diaz’s
courage, Tesla is at last being held accountable publicly and by the community for
its disgraceful and unlawful actions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Whether Tesla’s expensive loss
prompts corporate changes is yet to be determined; as </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search?q=tesla"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Bryan
Schwartz Law previously wrote</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that
it was “worth it” to intentionally violate securities law and incur a $20
million fine, and he unlawfully threatened employees with a loss of stock
options if they chose to unionize. Hopefully, this verdict pushes Tesla to
begin to treat its workers with fairness and respect. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Tesla’s disdain for the employees
on which it relies – particularly its non-white employees – is familiar to Bryan
Schwartz Law. Bryan Schwartz Law has been </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/11/new-york-times-investigation-supports.html"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">litigating
against Tesla in a race discrimination class action lawsuit</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">, along
with co-counsel the California Civil Rights Law Group, which also represents
Mr. Diaz. If you have been the subject of race discrimination at Tesla, </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search?q=tesla"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">please
contact Bryan Schwartz L</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">aw</span></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>SLGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10039262863993879059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-34643688760120601512021-09-15T10:46:00.000-07:002021-09-15T10:46:45.200-07:00A Victory for App-Based Drivers: California Superior Court Strikes Down Proposition 22<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 12pt;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQcjjD-xkwH3kRf9MTEupf3D_2ySxIxnUH4NH7zGlV26pNKo77XE6iDeqYp_SEFKDKhQjiZJINWp-1BEXe5S4ShTfueGHA7_-EGXgReSmrh7Ra1Sen0CRvYwbFiK0OhdSjkJgrfJsP26h/s2048/2021.09.15+Castellanos+rideshare+driver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="A woman wearing a face masks sits in the driver's seat of a car, smiling and looking out the window." border="0" data-original-height="1366" data-original-width="2048" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQcjjD-xkwH3kRf9MTEupf3D_2ySxIxnUH4NH7zGlV26pNKo77XE6iDeqYp_SEFKDKhQjiZJINWp-1BEXe5S4ShTfueGHA7_-EGXgReSmrh7Ra1Sen0CRvYwbFiK0OhdSjkJgrfJsP26h/w400-h266/2021.09.15+Castellanos+rideshare+driver.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><p></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In a momentous win for app-based drivers, the California Superior Court struck down Proposition 22 on August 20th, 2021. Gig companies such as Uber and Lyft spent an unprecedented $200,000,000+ to pass Proposition 22 in order to exempt themselves from treating app-based drivers as employees. Designating these workers as independent contractors allows companies like Uber and Lyft would to avoid their obligations to provide basic protections to their drivers, including a minimum wage, health insurance, contributions to workers compensation, and the ability to unionize.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/vote-no-on-proposition-22-to-protect.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bryan Schwartz Law has written before</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> about these and other </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/whats-next-for-gig-workers-rights-after.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">dangers of Prop 22</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: as independent contractors, drivers are paid an effective rate of about $5.64 per hour, well under the minimum wage, and would be denied an array of vital benefits and protections.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-9f0c2e19-7fff-1a3e-1eaa-c717094b8d09" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Although proponents of Proposition 22 claimed that it would protect the independence of app-based drivers, </span><a href="https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/c5/f5/7bba477c4a839d1edd9f5b5a75e9/prop-22-alameda-superior-ct.%208-20-21.pdf" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the California Superior Court disagreed in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Castellanos</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> The court even found that a provision of Proposition 22 that prohibited the Legislature from passing laws allowing app-based drivers to unionize only served to “protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce” and was completely unrelated to the stated goal of protecting drivers. The court found that this provision was therefore outside of the “single-scope” of Proposition 22; however, because the provision was severable, this finding did not impact the rest of the proposition.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even more striking to the court was how Proposition 22 curtailed the ability of the Legislature to provide a robust system of workers’ compensation, an essential part of our social safety net. Our Legislature’s ability to protect injured workers through an expansive workers’ compensation program is so critical that the power is </span><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%204.&article=XIV" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">enshrined in the California Constitution</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and completely unlimited by any other provision of the Constitution. Only a Constitutional amendment can reduce workers’ right to receive worker compensation. Proposition 22’s attempt to create a statute that reduced the number of employees eligible for workers compensation was therefore unconstitutional. Unlike the provision limiting drivers’ ability to unionize, this provision limiting workers’ compensation was not severable, so the court’s ruling that this provision was unconstitutional meant that the entirety of Proposition 22 was rejected.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Before Proposition 22 was in place, California used the ABC test that was </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/04/historic-victory-for-employees-in.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">established by the 2018 California Supreme Court decision in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dynamex</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and codified by AB5, to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test, a worker is an independent contractor only if: 1) the worker is not controlled or directed by their employer in how they perform their work, 2) their work is outside the scope of the employer’s usual business, and 3) the worker is working in an independently established trade or business that matches their work for their employer. The employer must prove each of these elements before it can call a worker an independent contractor. The ABC test makes it much more difficult for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, which allows many more workers to receive the benefits and protections to which they are entitled. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The decision in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Castellanos</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> vindicates the rights of hundreds of thousands of app-based drivers throughout California. This decision will likely be appealed, but it still represents an important step towards ensuring that app-based drivers receive the respect and protections that they deserve.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">please contact Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></span></p>Dylan Colberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10094796108541779644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-328865930129286752021-08-12T16:25:00.003-07:002021-08-12T16:27:17.976-07:00Rescission of Trump-Era Joint Employer Rule Strengthens Workers’ Rights<p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfJVTVrmUQCMFox-zVrLBh3cO3OGfYI3HkX-8-JkFUlMXAdZ0flSBjCXhnqXwYKGncXEHo4T2tMsUIfpyhpd5swFepOKD1JeAKlOLbnVxKpUHQTVjFi_kmnfSH4WobB4VTBhOToO2dEnmU/s2048/2021.8.12+Department+of+Labor.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfJVTVrmUQCMFox-zVrLBh3cO3OGfYI3HkX-8-JkFUlMXAdZ0flSBjCXhnqXwYKGncXEHo4T2tMsUIfpyhpd5swFepOKD1JeAKlOLbnVxKpUHQTVjFi_kmnfSH4WobB4VTBhOToO2dEnmU/w396-h297/2021.8.12+Department+of+Labor.jpg" width="396" /></a></div><p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></p><p><span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">The federal government is scrapping a rule created under the Trump administration to narrow the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for workers with more than one employer. Because this Trump administration rule shrank the category of entities liable for wage violations, it made recovering earned wages more difficult for employees. Its implementation would have </span><a href="https://www.epi.org/press/new-trump-administration-joint-employer-rule-has-1-billion-price-tag-for-workers/" style="font-size: 12pt; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline;">cost</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"> employees one billion dollars per year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. A federal court struck down a large portion of the rule last year in </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/court-strikes-down-trump-administration.html" style="font-size: 12pt; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline;">New York v. Scalia</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">; now, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) has decided to </span><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/30/2021-15316/rescission-of-joint-employer-status-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act-rule" style="font-size: 12pt; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline;">rescind</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"> the rule entirely. The rescission will take effect on September 28, 2021. </span></p><p></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-1316db19-7fff-db35-c362-c2c7d6400e31"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When multiple entities are considered joint employers, they can be held accountable for the same employee’s wages and other rights and benefits. For example, some workers hired through staffing agencies are jointly employed by the agency and the business at which they perform their duties. In such a case, both the agency and the other business is legally responsible for ensuring that the worker is appropriately compensated. The Trump-era “</span><span style="background-color: #f1f1f1; color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act”' redefined</span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the criteria for the joint employer classification, to make fewer employers liable. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The rule broke from past DOL interpretations of the FLSA, as B<br />ryan Schwartz Law previously </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2020-10-12T18:29:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=7&by-date=false" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">wrote</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. It did away with the traditional “economic dependence” analysis in favor of an employer-favorable four-factor analysis of the entity’s control over the employee. These Trump administration-preferred factors were whether an entity</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 12pt; padding: 0pt 0pt 12pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(i)</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 7pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hires or fires the employee;</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 0pt; padding: 0pt 0pt 12pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(ii)</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 7pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Supervises and controls the employee's work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 0pt; padding: 0pt 0pt 12pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(iii)</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 7pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Determines the employee's rate and method of payment; or</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(iv)</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 7pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #505050; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Maintains the employee's employment records.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The court in </span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">New York v. Scalia </span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">threw out most of this rule, siding with the seventeen states and the District of Columbia that challenged it. However, the court’s decision applied only to “vertical” joint employment—when an employee obtains work with an entity through a contractor, such as a staffing agency, and in similar situations. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s rule continued to govern “horizontal” joint employer liability, which can apply when a worker splits time between two employers. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Biden administration’s DOL will eliminate the Trump DOL’s rule in its entirety, providing a clear set of uniform regulations. This rescission fuels advocates’ hopes that the Biden Administration will continue to reverse regressive Trump-era policies undermining workers’ rights. Bryan Schwartz Law has written about previous reversals. For instance, in May, the Biden Department of Labor </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/biden-administration-rescinds-trump-era.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">prevented</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the Trump administration’s Independent Contractor Rule from going into effect. That </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/court-strikes-down-trump-administration.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">rule</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> would have made it easier for employers to misclassify workers as independent contractors, denying them the rights of employees under the FLSA. Biden also </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/promising-developments-for-lgbtq-workers.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">revoked</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> a memo issued by Trump’s Justice Department attempting to limit the protections that the landmark decision </span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock v. Clayton County </span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">affords LGBTQ+ workers. </span></p><br /><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you have been denied wages, breaks, overtime pay, or any other workers’ rights, please </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">contact</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Bryan Schwartz Law. </span></span>Polina Whitehousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02386160109758989929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-9160337567658237302021-07-29T09:27:00.003-07:002021-07-30T13:53:48.931-07:00Employees Win Victory in California Supreme Court Ruling on Meal and Rest Break Compensation<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz-rsyVJRfFW8qhOckiRxaBDV0Tw_vF3Dygq10Fry4TWoF3uTIY_M1_byT8JWKY3pgPuyPPqsSzEoSOFekanbz_IJyo36wOuETAn1AsFJPTjuJBvyyBQfRyfO5yD2lVqn18LXpuAKsxPak/s2048/7.29.21+lunch+break+photo+.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz-rsyVJRfFW8qhOckiRxaBDV0Tw_vF3Dygq10Fry4TWoF3uTIY_M1_byT8JWKY3pgPuyPPqsSzEoSOFekanbz_IJyo36wOuETAn1AsFJPTjuJBvyyBQfRyfO5yD2lVqn18LXpuAKsxPak/w400-h266/7.29.21+lunch+break+photo+.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p>California law provides non-exempt employees with meal and rest periods. If an employer does not provide compliant meal or rest periods, employees are entitled to “one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation.” (</span><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=226.7.&nodeTreePath=3.1.1.1&lawCode=LAB" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7(c).</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">) But are forms of pay such as incentives or commissions included in this calculus, or is it limited to hourly pay? In a victory for employees, the California Supreme Court decided earlier this month that other non-discretionary pay must be included in calculating an employee’s regular rate.</span><p></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-7798f4d1-7fff-ba59-2130-b80e9aa5b968"><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The case was filed by Jessica Ferra, a former bartender at the Loews Hollywood Hotel. Ferra claimed Loews had underpaid her and a class of similarly-situated employees for non-compliant meal and rest breaks because she and the other class members’ incentive payments were excluded from the calculation of missed breaks premiums. These payments were part of the pay Ferra expected and Loews promised, so Ferra contended that they should be factored into the formula for the “regular rate of compensation” used to calculate missed break premiums. In </span><a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S259172.PDF" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) No. S259172 </span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, the California Supreme Court agreed. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Regular rate of compensation” versus “regular rate of pay”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The decision came down to whether the “regular rate of compensation” for meal and rest break premiums is calculated the same way as is the “regular rate of pay” for overtime purposes. Loews contended that the calculations were different because the legal phrases were different, arguing that when the legislature uses different terms, it intends their meaning to differ. The court was not persuaded, noting that “compensation” and “pay” are synonyms. Regardless, the key phrase was “regular rate,” which applies to the calculations for both overtime and meal and rest break premiums. The court reasoned that the “regular rate” calculation follows that of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), looking to California case law and legislative history. Therefore, the “regular rate of pay” under California law must follow the same method of calculation as the “regular rate” in the FLSA, both for overtime calculations and for meal and rest break premium calculations. The court further opined that even if “compensation” and “pay” had different meanings in a relevant way, compensation covers a broader range of employment benefits than pay, such as wages, commissions, medical benefits, and other benefits.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Retroactive application</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sweetening the victory for employees, the Court determined that its decision applies retroactively to violations that came before the July 15 decision. The Court reasoned that its ruling rested on statutory interpretation, which merely clarifies a statute’s meaning, rather than setting forth new law. The Court rejected Loews’s misguided argument that this decision would put employers on the hook for millions of dollars, pointing out that “it is not clear why we should favor the interest of employers in avoiding ‘millions’ in liability over the interest of employees in obtaining the ‘millions’ owed to them under the law.” Consequently, employees may have a legal claim for non-compliant meal and rest break premiums, even if they were denied compensation before <i>Ferra </i>was decided. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you believe you have been wrongly denied meal or rest breaks or premiums paid at the correct rate of pay, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></p><div><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div></span><br />Polina Whitehousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02386160109758989929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-82214797657566874282021-06-22T13:22:00.000-07:002021-06-22T13:22:15.936-07:00Biden Administration Rescinds Trump-Era "Independent Contractor Rule"<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.4cornerresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Independent-Contractor-Agreement-scaled.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="297" src="https://www.4cornerresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Independent-Contractor-Agreement-scaled.jpeg" width="446" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">It
has been a rough year for workers, but recent developments in worker
classification suggest better days are ahead. On May 5, 2021, the Department of
Labor (“DOL”) rescinded Trump-era guidelines regarding independent contractor
classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The withdrawal came
days before the Trump Administration’s “Independent Contractor Rule” would have
gone into effect, essentially preserving the status quo with respect to federal
independent contractor classification guidelines.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
FLSA does not cover independent contractors. As a result, they are not
guaranteed minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, workers’
compensation, and other vital protections. Given its dramatic implications, worker
classification remains a hot-button political issue. Courts commonly apply the
“economic realities” approach to assess worker classification, a multi-factor
balancing test that evaluates whether a worker depends on their employer to
make a living as a matter of economic reality. If the “totality of the
circumstances” indicate that more factors than not show that worker is
economically dependent on their employer, several federal circuit courts
nationwide held that they are classified as an employee. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-administration-withdraws-guidance.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Trump Administration
adopted a pro-business position</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> on worker classification
in 2017. In keeping with this position, the DOL issued a final “Independent
Contractor Rule” (Rule) on January 6, 2021. Bryan Schwartz Law </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/court-strikes-down-trump-administration.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">blogged about
this Rule</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> previously. Although </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa/2021-independent-contractor"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">the Rule</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
purported to reaffirm the extant “economic realities” test, in practice it
abandoned longstanding judicial precedent in favor of a more business-friendly
standard. The new guidelines would have made it easier for employers to
classify workers as independent contractors by reducing the considerations
traditionally included in the analysis. Instead of the multi-factor balancing
test applied by courts for decades, the Rule prioritized two main factors, the
worker’s level of control and opportunity for profit, above all other
considerations. If analysis of these main factors proved inconclusive, the Rule
then required employers to weigh three additional factors: (1) the level of
skill required for the work, (2) the permanence of the working relationship between
the worker and the employer, and (3) whether the work is integral to the
employer’s overall business operation. This approach ultimately would have reduced
the number of workers classified as employees under the FLSA, thereby depriving
them of federal protections. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">After
the Trump Administration’s exit, the Biden Administration instructed its DOL to
withdraw the “Independent Contractor Rule.” The DOL offered </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20210505"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">three reasons</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
to rescind the Rule: first, that it conflicted with the text, purpose, and
judicial precedent interpreting the FLSA; second, that its hierarchy of main
and guiding factors contravened the balancing approach used in the economic
realities test; and third, that it restricted “the totality of the
circumstances” traditionally analyzed when determining worker classification. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Workers’
rights advocates hope more administrative and legislative actions will follow. As
part of his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden promised aggressive FLSA enforcement
to crack down on employers who misclassify their workers as independent
contractors. In addition, Biden committed to designing </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">a federal standard</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
for worker classification modeled after the “</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/judge-orders-uber-and-lyft-to-treat.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ABC test</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.”
California’s </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">AB-5</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
legislation is one such example of this test. To qualify as an independent
contractor under the ABC test, that worker must (a) be free from the control
and direction of the hiring entity, (b) perform work outside the usual course
of the hiring entity’s business, and (c) engage in an independently established
trade, occupation, or business. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">That
worker may be classified as an independent contractor only if they satisfy all
three prongs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">If
you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></div></div>Lilith Gamerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15885722994489828364noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-31656482150267134382021-06-22T12:58:00.007-07:002021-06-22T13:05:20.822-07:00Juneteenth: A Celebration and a Call to Action<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-efc4f3f7-7fff-0577-4bd5-41d13e796727"></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKHVWgnLbR4LDPAxm55cS99OYcc6n9uz37JegFbFpT_xJq2O0LXDpSjj5eR3jkVy6NV6IifjUGt1Ckw9fMbxMjaOn7od6k3yMJVYqDBzVH9A4aYTZIXH9MuZr9JQzpW84p191kctx26RcO/w400-h232/2021.06.22+-+Juneteenth+Flag.jpg" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>What is Juneteenth and why is it a national holiday?</b></div><b><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div></b><div style="text-align: justify;">The oldest known celebration of the end of slavery in the U.S. became a national holiday last week. President Biden <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">signed</a> the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act on June 17, creating the first new federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was established in 1983.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Juneteenth originated in Texas to mark Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger’s announcement on June 19, 1865, at Galveston, that formerly enslaved people were free under the law. This day is a celebration of freedom, but it also serves as a reminder for the country that just as the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually end slavery in 1863, Black Americans’ fight against oppression did not end with freedom from slavery. Instead, these moments mark turning points in a struggle that is ongoing today.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>What does the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act really do?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This law doesn’t guarantee a day off for most workers. Though most federal employees got Friday, June 18 off this year (June 19 being a Saturday), and some states (though not California) also made the day a paid holiday for state employees, private employers can choose whether or not to cancel work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Recognition of Juneteenth as a milestone of national importance is certainly cause for celebration, though advocates recognize it is only a step toward racial justice. Opal Lee, who helped lead the movement to make Juneteenth a federal holiday and was in attendance as Biden signed the bill, said, “We've got all of these disparities that we've got to address and I mean all of them. While we've got some momentum I hope we can get some of it done.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>What is the role of employment law in effecting change?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">While legal action can address only a limited range of racism’s manifestations, it can serve as an important tool against certain forms of race-based harassment and discrimination that employees face at work. For example, a class represented by Bryan Schwartz Law is suing Tesla for the rampant racism its members have experienced as workers in the car manufacturer’s Fremont factory. On April 9 of this year, the court denied Tesla’s motion to end class claims, fueling hopes for the lawsuit’s future.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">As an employment law firm, Bryan Schwartz Law is committed to fighting race-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace. If you are experiencing harms of these kinds and are seeking legal assistance, you can reach out to us <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div>Polina Whitehousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02386160109758989929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-82344791053601350762021-05-26T10:41:00.002-07:002021-05-26T10:41:22.433-07:00Accommodating the telework employee post-COVID: What was often thought to be an “unreasonable” accommodation request, turns out to be very reasonable after all<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizT353BCmQAM6mwUbkBYjG9k0h-G0mdrUyAt7igiT7bwTRMROiSmsiN85sqezA-AZaijnA00blAg6WV4hsfKqcfmUDggGh_RK5V_v2beMjonZ_b7ALGwG3GW632Z9y9VuBS7ARiB_qKEI/s1086/Schwartz--Clark_Accommodating-the-telework-employee-post-COVID_Plaintiff-magazine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="725" data-original-width="1086" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizT353BCmQAM6mwUbkBYjG9k0h-G0mdrUyAt7igiT7bwTRMROiSmsiN85sqezA-AZaijnA00blAg6WV4hsfKqcfmUDggGh_RK5V_v2beMjonZ_b7ALGwG3GW632Z9y9VuBS7ARiB_qKEI/s320/Schwartz--Clark_Accommodating-the-telework-employee-post-COVID_Plaintiff-magazine.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[This article by Bryan Schwartz and Cassidy Clark appeared first in the May 2021 edition of <i>Plaintiff </i>magazine.] </p><p>Plaintiffs’ employment lawyers are wondering how our society’s response to COVID-19 will change our practice, permanently. We now know that we can take depositions, attend mediation, argue motions, and perform almost every other basic litigation activity remotely, without compromising the quality of our efforts.</p><p>These changes will also improve our clients’ footing when they seek work-from-home disability accommodations. Employers have long argued that physical attendance at work is an essential function of most jobs. Courts have frequently rejected workers’ requests for telework or work from home as reasonable accommodations for disabilities under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).</p><p>Courts and juries will never see telework the same again. Even as more Americans become vaccinated against COVID-19 and traditional offices resume in-person operations, plaintiffs’ attorneys will successfully argue that pre-COVID-19 precedents regarding telework are outdated, and that today, telework is a presumptively reasonable accommodation in most places of employment.</p><p><b>Reasonable accommodations and undue hardship </b></p><p>Under the ADA and FEHA, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees where such an accommodation does not cause the employer “undue hardship.” (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5); Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m).) The initial burden rests with the employee to show that she is a “qualified individual” under the statutes. A qualified individual is a person who has the requisite education and experience for a job, and can perform the essential functions of the job “with or without reasonable accommodation.” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (a)(1).)</p><p>The statutes provide examples for reasonable accommodations such as “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, [and] acquisition or modification of equipment or devices.” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9); Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (p) (2).) California’s FEHA specifically lists, “Permitting an employee to work from home,” as an example of a reasonable accommodation. (Gov. Code, § 11065, subd. (p)(2)(L).) As for undue hardship, the statutes instruct courts and juries to consider the financial resources of the employer, the impact of the accommodation on the operations of the employer, and the type of work conducted by the employer. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(B); Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (u).) This minimal guidance has allowed courts to deny employees the opportunity for telework frequently.</p><p><b>Telework jurisprudence</b></p><p>In February 2019, Bloomberg Law conducted an analysis of ADA telework cases and found that employers won 70 percent of rulings over the prior two years regarding whether they could reject workers’ bids for telework as an accommodation for a disability. Many federal and California courts had adopted a “general rule – that regularly attending work on-site is essential to most jobs, especially the interactive ones.” (<i>E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co. </i>(6th Cir. 2015) 782 F.3d 753, 761; see also <i>EEOC v. Yellow Freight </i><i>Sys., Inc.</i> (7th Cir.2001) 253 F.3d 943, 948; <i>Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs.</i> (4th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 209, 213; <i>Samper v. </i><i>Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr.</i> (9th Cir. 2012) 675 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (collecting cases); <i>Mason v. Avaya Commc’ns, Inc. </i>(10th Cir. 2004) 357 F.3d 1114, 1122-24 (same); <i>McCormick v. Pub. Employees’ Ret. </i><i>Sys.</i> (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 428, 441.) As a typical example, the Seventh Circuit opined that “most jobs require the kind of teamwork, personal interaction, and supervision that simply cannot be had in a home office situation.” (<i>Rauen v. U.S. </i><i>Tobacco Mfg. L.P. </i>(7th Cir. 2003) 319 F.3d 891, 896.) One unpublished (thankfully) California Court of Appeal explained (citing federal authorities), “Except in the unusual case where an employee can perform all work-related duties at home, an employee who doesn’t come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise.” (ital. in orig.) (<i>Hernandez v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. </i>(Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017) No. B260109, 2017 WL 345057, at *7 (quoting <i>Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr.</i>, 675 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2012).) </p><p>On the other hand, even before COVID-19, some courts recognized remote work as a possible reasonable accommodation. (See <i>Samper, Id. </i>[“regular attendance is not necessary for all jobs”]; <i>Waggoner v. Olin Corp.</i> (7th Cir. 1999) 169 F.3d 481, 485 [“In some jobs . . . working at home for a time might be an option”]; <i>Carr v. Reno</i>, 23 F.3d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1994) [“in appropriate cases, that section requires an agency to consider work at home, as well as reassignment in another position, as potential forms of accommodation”]; <i>Ravel v. Hewlett-Packard Enter.</i>,<i> Inc.</i> (E.D. Cal. 2017) 228 F.Supp. 3d 1086, 1096 [holding “work from home” may be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA].)</p><p>An especially promising 2001 Ninth Circuit decision, <i>Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association</i>, should guide plaintiffs’ attorneys in a post-COVID-19 landscape. (239 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001).) “Working at home is a reasonable accommodation when the essential functions of the position can be performed at home and a work-at-home arrangement would not cause undue hardship for the employer.” (<i>Id. </i>at 1136.) In <i>Humphrey</i>, the court reasoned that because other employees were allowed to work remotely for reasons other than disability, working in person may not have been an essential function of the job, and therefore, remote work should have been considered as an accommodation for the plaintiff-employee with a disability. (<i>Id.</i> at 1137; see also <i>Hughes v. U.S. </i><i>Foodservice, Inc.</i> (9th Cir. 2006) 168 F. App’x 807, 808 [applying <i>Humphrey</i> to FEHA, finding the plaintiff “able to perform the essential functions of the new customer service position from home and that a work-at-home arrangement would not cause [defendant] undue hardship” under FEHA].)</p><p><i>Humphrey </i>teaches us that in analysis of undue hardship and essential functions, courts consider whether the work has been successfully performed by other employees outside of the physical office. Now, following a year of widespread telework wherein most traditional office employers have successfully instituted some form of telework without sacrificing productivity, plaintiffs will be armed with abundant examples of successful telework arrangements. Many plaintiffs will be able to show that they themselves have successfully completed their jobs remotely.</p><p><b>Telework in a post-COVID-19 landscape</b></p><p>Workers’ advocates should start by reminding employers – and courts – that employers have the burden of establishing that the stated essential functions are, in fact, essential functions of the job. (<i>See Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. </i>(9th Cir. 2007) 511 F.3d 974, 991 [“Although the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuading the fact finder that he can perform the job’s essential functions ... an employer who disputes the plaintiff ’s claim that he can perform the essential functions must put forth evidence establishing those functions.”].) In other words, employers cannot simply state that physical attendance is an essential function of the job. Employers must offer evidence supporting their contention that physical attendance is essential. This will likely become more difficult as many employers have already instituted widespread telework accommodations for their entire workforces. </p><p>We can already see a shift occurring. On September 16, 2020, a Massachusetts District Court accepted evidence of an organization’s COVID-19 work-from-home arrangement to support a plaintiff-employee’s argument that they should be allowed to telework as a reasonable accommodation for their disability going forward. (<i>See Peeples v. Clinical Support </i><i>Options, Inc.</i> (D. Mass. 2020) 487 F.Supp.3d 56, 65.) In <i>Peeples</i>, the employer made the same argument made successfully by so many employers before, that it needed its employees physically in the office to ensure adequate supervision and client interaction. (<i>Ibid.</i>) However, here, the plaintiff presented evidence that they performed the same duties on-site that they had provided remotely during the organization’s initial COVID-19 response. (<i>Ibid.</i>) Thus, because the plaintiff had already demonstrated that they could perform the essential functions of the job remotely, the court held that the balance of hardship weighed in the plaintiff ’s favor. (<i>Ibid.</i>)</p><p>Whereas prior to COVID-19, courts were not persuaded that intangibles such as “teamwork, personal interaction, and supervision” could be accomplished through telework, the past year’s experience may persuade them otherwise. Before 2020, courts frequently repeated the <i>Samper </i>quote, that only in the “unusual case” could an employee effectively perform work-related duties at home. Now, it is much less “unusual” for people to work entirely from home. Additionally, prior to the pandemic, much of the legal profession, including the courts, had never experienced telework. Now, attorneys and courts know that remote work arrangements can be successful. </p><p>Further, the widespread nature of telework during COVID-19 accelerated the technology available to employers to facilitate remote work. Prior to March 2020, most of the world had never heard of Zoom and many workplaces had never had video meetings. Now, these technologies are integral aspects of office jobs that courts and juries will take into account. </p><p><b>EEOC guidance</b></p><p>In December, the EEOC, under the prior administration, issued guidance regarding telework in a post-COVID-19 America. (What You Should Know about COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. EEOC (last accessed April 26, 2021).) The Guidance emphasized that even if a workplace participated in telework during the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer will not be required to approve telework as a reasonable accommodation after the pandemic concludes. (<i>Ibid.</i>) However, the agency noted, “the period of providing telework because of the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as a trial period that showed whether or not this employee with a disability could satisfactorily perform all essential functions while working remotely.” (<i>Ibid.</i>)</p><p>Although this guidance is outdated because of the new administration, the suggested framework of viewing an employee’s telework during COVID-19 as a sort of “trial period,” may inform plaintiffs’ strategy going forward. As in <i>Peeples</i>, plaintiffs should consider using their own successful experience working remotely as evidence that they can perform the essential functions of their jobs while working from home.</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>For far too long, courts disfavored the prospect of telework because of traditional notions of productivity and workplace comradery, even though telework provides an avenue for people with disabilities to have successful careers that otherwise may not be available to them.</p><p>One silver lining of having experienced the COVID era may be that plaintiffs’ attorneys can move courts and juries toward presumed acceptance of work-from-home disability accommodations. We now know that employers have the capacity to make big changes to keep their workforce employed, including shifting to telework, without losing productivity. What was previously thought of often as an “unreasonable” accommodation request, turns out to be very reasonable after all.</p><p><b>Bryan Schwartz </b>is an Oakland-based practitioner representing workers in class, collective, and individual actions, including discrimination, wage/hour, whistleblower, and unique federal and public employee claims. He practices in state and federal trial and appeals courts, in arbitration, and before a variety of administrative agencies. Since 2010, he has represented a certified class of Foreign Service Officer candidates denied reasonable accommodations against the U.S. Department of State. He is past Chair of the 8,000+-member State Bar Labor and Employment Law Section (now called California Lawyers Association), and on the Board of Directors of Legal Aid at Work, the Foundation for Advocacy, Inclusion and Resources (FAIR), and is a former Board member of the California Employment Lawyers Association. He is a regular speaker, moderator, and conference co-chair on employment law issues, and a frequent contributor to <i>Plaintiff </i>magazine and other publications. www.BryanSchwartzLaw.com.</p><p><b>Cassidy Clark</b> is the Joseph V. Kaplan Workers’ Rights Fellow at Bryan Schwartz Law. She represents workers in discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower, and wage/hour claims. Ms. Clark earned her undergraduate degree at Cornell University and her Juris Doctor from UC Berkeley School of Law.<br /></p>Bryan Schwartz Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10509090710437656270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-16475561062271125112021-04-27T17:32:00.003-07:002021-04-27T17:35:47.907-07:00Ninth Circuit Rejects University’s Latest Attempt to Scuttle Professor’s Equal Pay Case<p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPIMFP29maT4ygdmgC0SrTq2amm63aJnbee8-uY9bHk2PQglXPLEeXNiFjhx3sz0tlvZp7i4-Q6ie3APmz0DTIVq3VKsYfnok5VGfOwnoRJBQ_ZCSLmB5gPgzi8Z0cBD70PJzglxw_Nis/s600/equal+pay+case.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPIMFP29maT4ygdmgC0SrTq2amm63aJnbee8-uY9bHk2PQglXPLEeXNiFjhx3sz0tlvZp7i4-Q6ie3APmz0DTIVq3VKsYfnok5VGfOwnoRJBQ_ZCSLmB5gPgzi8Z0cBD70PJzglxw_Nis/s320/equal+pay+case.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">By Jennifer Reisch</span></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">On Friday, April 23, 2021, the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an <a href="https://uomatters.com/2021/04/updates-on-prof-jennifer-freyds-pay-discrimination-lawsuit.html" style="color: #954f72;">order</a> in Freyd v. University of Oregon, No. 19-35428<b> </b>(9th Cir. 2021)<b> </b>rejecting the University of Oregon’s petition for rehearing <i>en banc</i>, its latest attempt to prevent the pay equity claims of renown psychology professor Jennifer Freyd from going to trial. The order leaves intact the <a href="https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Freyd_opinion_March2021.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">March 15 decision reversing summary judgment</a> on Professor Freyd’s Equal Pay Act and Title VII disparate impact claims, solidifying positive precedent for workers seeking fair pay across industries and occupations, where gender and race wage gaps remain the norm. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">The Freyd opinion and order denying en banc review came as welcome news for the plaintiff and supporters of gender pay equity, dozens of whom joined <a href="https://www.justicelawyers.com/blog/2019/10/womens-and-civil-rights-groups-file-briefs/" style="color: #954f72;">amicus briefs</a> filed in support of her appeal back in 2019. It came on the heels of Equal Pay Day, a symbolic date that marks how far into this year women employed full-time had to work to earn what men were paid, on average, in 2020. The persistent gender wage gap costs women and families <a href="https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/fair-pay/americas-women-and-the-wage-gap.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">nearly $1 trillion dollars per year</a> and hits particularly hard in a year that saw women being <a href="https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/11/women-are-leaving-the-labor-force-in-record-numbers.html" style="color: #954f72;">pushed out of the workforce in record numbers</a>, <a href="https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/December-Jobs-Day.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">losing more than half of the jobs</a> shed by the U.S. economy during the COVID pandemic. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">In 2021, women are still <a href="https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/employment-and-earnings/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-race-and-ethnicity-2020/" style="color: #954f72;">paid less that men in almost all occupations</a> and pay <a href="https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/genderwagegap/" style="color: #954f72;">gaps still grow as education levels increase</a>, with the largest disparities among workers with advanced degrees <span style="background-color: white;">—</span> like Professor Freyd.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Freyd, a tenured professor of psychology and renowned trauma studies scholar, first discovered she was being paid significantly less than several of her male colleagues back in 2014. Men who held the same positions, in the same department, but had less seniority and were no more accomplished than she, were making tens of thousands of dollars more. And while Freyd’s pay disparity was particularly glaring, it was not unique: her own regression analysis and other studies conducted by the university and independent analysts found a “significant equity problem with respect to salaries at the full professor level” in her department. This disparity was driven primarily by the practice of giving “retention raises” to certain (disproportionately male) <span style="background-color: white;">professors as an incentive to remain at the university, without making corresponding equity adjustments to the salaries of other (disproportionately female) faculty members, like Freyd, who did not seek outside offers to leverage higher pay. </span><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">After attempting to resolve the issue internally over three years to no avail, Freyd filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, asserting claims under the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. and Oregon constitutions, and related state laws. The district court threw out all of her claims on summary judgment. In dismissing her EPA claim, Judge Michael McShane held that Freyd did not do “equal work” to her male comparators, even though they held the same position and rank, had the same core job functions and responsibilities, and were evaluated based on the same criteria. <span style="background-color: white;">The university argued — and the district court agreed — that Freyd could not show she did “equal work” to the comparators because they conducted different types of research, ran different labs, obtained research grants from different sources, and sat on different university committees. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">In its March 2021 decision, t</span>he 9th Circuit reversed, rejecting the view that granular distinctions in the way individuals carry out particular segments of their job make it impossible to establish that they did substantially equal work (or “<a href="https://www.oregon.gov/das/HR/Pages/equityfaq.aspx#:~:text=Work%20of%20a%20comparable%20character%20is%20defined%20in%20the%20bill,similar%20qualifications%20%3D%20similar%20pay.%E2%80%9D" style="color: #954f72;">work of a comparable character</a>,” under Oregon’s equal pay statute) as a matter of law, especially if they hold positions that share a “common core of tasks.” The court affirmed that under the EPA, the concept of “equal work” does not mean each aspect of the work must be “identical.” The majority opinion (written by Judge Jay Bybee) underlined the importance of comparing the overall content of <i>jobs</i>, “not the individuals who hold the jobs” in determining whether a plaintiff could establish a prima facie case under the law. Embracing arguments advanced by <i>amici </i><a href="https://www.justicelawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1400193/2019/10/Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Equal-Rights-Advocates.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">Equal Rights Advocates and other women’s and civil rights organizations</a>, the majority noted that, “the granularity with which the dissent picks through the facts would gut the Equal Pay Act for all but the most perfunctory of tasks.” This would render the EPA a dead letter for huge swaths of the workforce, not just academics, ignoring the law’s “broadly remedial” purpose and frustrating its intent.<span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><b><i><span style="background-color: white;">The decision reinforced the importance of closely scrutinizing market-based defenses to discriminatory pay practices </span></i></b><b><i>precisely because they are so likely to perpetuate the very gender wage disparities that our equal pay laws are designed to address</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">In reversing summary judgment on Freyd’s disparate impact claim under Title VII, the 9th Circuit recognized that she was not challenging the practice of giving retention raises, <i>per se</i>, but rather “<span style="background-color: white;">the specific employment practice of awarding retention raises to some professors without increasing the salaries of other professors of comparable merit and seniority.” This important distinction was lost on the dissent (penned by Trump appointee Judge Lawrence VanDyke), which lamented that limiting the unequal application of retention raises will hinder universities’ ability to compete and cause “brain drain” — a position echoed by the university in its statement following the decision. The problem with this position—aside from its gender- and racially biased undertones about whose “brains” are worth retaining—is its implication that only through engaging in discriminatory employment practices can the university (and other employers) attract and retain the “best and brightest” and succeed financially. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">Fortunately, the majority recognized that disputed issues of fact remain about whether the university’s retention raise policy actually represents a “business necessity,” and if so, whether Freyd’s proposed alternative practice — of “evaluating the resulting salary disparity with others in the same rank with comparable merit and seniority, and giv[ing] affected individuals a raise” — would be equally effective in accomplishing the goal of retaining talented faculty, without having a discriminatory impact on women.</span> This aspect of the decision serves as a reminder that there is nothing inevitable or natural about compensation structures and practices; they are devised by human beings -- and can be changed by human beings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Finally, the court reversed the<span style="background-color: white;"> district court’s finding that the small size of the psychology department precluded Freyd from using statistical evidence to support her pay discrimination claim. This important aspect of the ruling affirms </span>that courts must not deprive employees of Title VII protections simply because they work in a small employee pool.<span style="font-size: 14pt;"></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">All workers deserve to be paid fairly and valued fully. But closing the gender wage gap and ensuring fair and equal pay for all won’t happen by accident. Achieving these goals will require bold, persistent efforts by workers, like the brave employees who achieved <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Kaiser-to-pay-11-5-million-to-settle-pay-equity-16121671.php" style="color: #954f72;">remarkable settlements</a> to advance equity and racial justice at Kaiser Permanente last week; by creative advocates, like those tenaciously fighting for <a href="http://www.oracleequalpay.com/" style="color: #954f72;">equal pay at Oracle</a>; and by employers who heed the call to act, in the words of Dr. Freyd, with <a href="https://www.institutionalcourage.org/the-call-to-courage" style="color: #954f72;">institutional courage</a> by taking proactive steps to make workplaces more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">----<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><i>Jennifer Reisch is Of Counsel to Bryan Schwartz Law and the former Legal Director of Equal Rights Advocates, who co-authored its amicus brief in the </i>Freyd <i>case.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Jennifer Reisch, Of Counselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09109837353956269070noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-7760349919003596252021-03-30T08:29:00.001-07:002021-03-30T08:29:06.035-07:00NLRB Slaps Back Elon Musk for Union Busting Tweet<p><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">Tesla landed itself back in the
news last week for yet another dose of negative publicity, courtesy of the
quick-tweeting trigger finger of its CEO, Elon Musk. This time, the National
Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) found Musk to have </span><a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-elon-musk-laws-b9721a6e826e9652c08b64042e0db479" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">threatened
employees with a loss of stock options if they chose to be represented by the
United Auto Workers labor union</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">. The 2018 tweet in question
read: <span style="background: whitesmoke; color: #2c2c2c;">“Nothing stopping Tesla
team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But
why pay union dues and give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is
2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare.”</span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8uTVyr2Jx38W997mo5idvYTMsNIjP8rZcmSAOGeK_kfcC9Cbc-6GD0J_5r97tgQvcLry8_4X-79Mn0Q20QMVwgSFCJxZh1n1nzDzgNO-a4Yvs0hQGvglDn-a_fNQFNh6lOa69bsKJoHw/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1366" data-original-width="2048" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8uTVyr2Jx38W997mo5idvYTMsNIjP8rZcmSAOGeK_kfcC9Cbc-6GD0J_5r97tgQvcLry8_4X-79Mn0Q20QMVwgSFCJxZh1n1nzDzgNO-a4Yvs0hQGvglDn-a_fNQFNh6lOa69bsKJoHw/" width="320" /></a></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Musk’s social media usage has
already gotten Tesla into tens of millions of dollars of trouble. </span><a href="https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">His tweet that he was
considering taking Tesla private led to artificial investment in Tesla stock,
even though the tweet had no basis in fact</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">. The Securities and
Exchange Commission fined him and Tesla each $20 million. Musk later said the
penalty was “</span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-musk-tweet/teslas-elon-musk-says-tweet-that-led-to-20-million-fine-worth-it-idUSKCN1N10K2"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">worth it</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">,”
speaking volumes about the weakness of the regulatory scheme that is meant to
protect against the ultra-wealthy’s abuses of power. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Last week’s NLRB decision
represents another agency’s attempt to rein in Musk’s unlawful social media
posts. The NLRB ordered Musk and Tesla to stop threatening employees for
supporting labor efforts, delete the tweet, place a notice regarding unfair
labor practices at the Fremont plant, and place notices about the tweet in all Tesla
facilities nationwide. The NLRB decision also reinstated with backpay a Tesla
employee who was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his union activities.
Neither Tesla nor Musk will be faced with any penalties other than the
employee’s backpay. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Bryan Schwartz Law is no stranger
to Tesla and Musk’s unlawful workplace ethos. Since 2017, </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/11/new-york-times-investigation-supports.html"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">BSL has
been litigating a case against Tesla concerning appalling race harassment at
its Fremont factory</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">. The NLRB decision is a positive development for
workers, hopefully the start of many changes at the Tesla workplace to protect
employees from abuses. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">If you have experienced
retaliation or discrimination at Tesla, </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">contact Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>SLGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10039262863993879059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-84294664037219788812021-03-05T14:40:00.005-08:002021-03-10T16:18:02.463-08:00Whistleblower Victory Means Public Entities are Subject to PAGA - Sargent v. Board of Trustees <p><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6CVj-G8t4ku5LYdDIUPJjE_KDCiFc224Rz8s7lr1_00HDV3gSH8yIQn6VoE1UVMbkTKt-Gk30VQ1d87MqceiRqOb-9wD8P6BjYMy9ortDKNlankCZV1QUlkujAVJ-HS6xFSRvOGoUwdM/s2048/asbestos.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1371" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6CVj-G8t4ku5LYdDIUPJjE_KDCiFc224Rz8s7lr1_00HDV3gSH8yIQn6VoE1UVMbkTKt-Gk30VQ1d87MqceiRqOb-9wD8P6BjYMy9ortDKNlankCZV1QUlkujAVJ-HS6xFSRvOGoUwdM/s320/asbestos.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"><br />The Court of Appeal today certified for partial publication (hopefully soon to be full publication)</span><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;"> </span><i style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/sargent-opinion">Sargent v. Board of Trustees of CSU</a>, </i><span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: small;">a case led by Collier Law Firm (Bryan Schwartz Law's co-counsel) with amicus support from Bryan Schwartz Law writing on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association.</span><p></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In <i>Sargent, </i>the Court of Appeal held unequivocally that aggrieved public employees can bring some PAGA claims against their employers - in particular, PAGA claims derived from Labor Code sections that provide for civil penalties (<i>i.e.</i>, as opposed to those where only PAGA default penalties would be implicated). Government entities have argued that PAGA categorically does not apply to them - with some success at the the trial court level - but this decision should put that argument to rest. The Court relied on <i>Kim v. Reins' </i>holding that an employee has standing to bring PAGA claims when he/she was aggrieved by at least one claim personally - even if he/she did not personally experience all the violations.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> <br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Plaintiff Sargent blew the whistle on health/safety violations at the CSU, involving asbestos and other hazardous materials. He promptly received six written reprimands and ultimately was constructively discharged. The jury found cat's paw liability, under <i>Reeves v. Safeway</i> (CACI 2511), after the trial court sustained some of plaintiff's important evidentiary objections - which the Court of Appeal upheld. <br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Collier Law Firm fought thousands of hours in the trenches to prevail in the underlying jury verdict (the docket ran 167 pages, as the Court of Appeal pointed out). Though the plaintiff's underlying award will be modest, the Court of Appeal upheld a $7.8M fee award resulting from Defendant's scorched-earth litigation tactics, plus a well-deserved 2.0 lodestar fee multiplier. The Court rejected apportionment between successful/unsuccessful claims, and held that fees were supported under public-benefit theory, CCP 1021.5 (and did not reverse the trial court's finding that they were appropriate also under catalyst theory). Importantly, the Court of Appeal rejected CSU's argument that CSU should not have to pay such a fee multiplier because the defendant is a public entity.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>Sargent </i>serves as a cautionary tale to defendants who fight with scorched-earth litigation tactics. The Court of Appeal cited defense counsel's billed hours and number of attorneys staffed on the file, as evidence that plaintiffs' counsel's billing was not excessive and that plaintiff's fees were reasonable. The Court upheld the award even though<i> </i>it reversed all the PAGA penalties that were awarded to the plaintiff (because they were not based upon PAGA penalties for Labor Code violations of sections with their own penalty provisions).</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Bryan Schwartz Law congratulates the Collier Law Firm and all those who worked to win the important <i>Sargent </i>precedent.</div>Bryan Schwartz Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10509090710437656270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-1243959874681058942021-02-26T15:26:00.000-08:002021-02-26T15:26:09.794-08:00Promising Developments for LGBTQ Workers<span id="docs-internal-guid-d079cdb6-7fff-d85e-63fb-619836d67b04"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-ce00cad1-7fff-c782-4560-1c692fda9f25"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After four years under a President who</span><a href="https://www.them.us/story/donald-trump-worst-lgbtq-attacks" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">did everything in his power</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to strip LGBTQ people of their rights, things are finally looking up for LGBTQ workers. On his first day in office, President Biden issued an</span><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Executive Order</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> instructing his administration to vigorously enforce the federal anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And this week, the House of Representatives</span><a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/24/969591569/house-to-vote-on-equality-act-heres-what-the-law-would-do" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">voted</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to pass the</span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Equality Act</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly encompass protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Biden’s Executive Order requires federal agencies to follow the landmark Supreme Court decision in</span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock v. Clayton County</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, which Bryan Schwartz Law has</span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/victory-us-supreme-court-rules-that.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">written about before</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. The Court in </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> interpreted Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It held, “</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">” </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1734 (2020). The Court reasoned that it is impossible for an employer to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation without discriminating against them on the basis of sex. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Id</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. at 1741. Justice Gorsuch provided the example of a man being fired because he was married to a man, whereas a woman would not have been fired for being married to a man. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Id</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Therefore, because men and women are treated differently, there exists sex discrimination in this scenario. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Id</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 231px; overflow: hidden; width: 347px;"><img height="231" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/53WItFdOTvKfiSv0MCkjHzXcnoLQDWYnc7Nfe_y0VOSF7pp0yvtx7nAs0Ol8JkqkOkHUC4rfCB7TrB7ng_MSERsMFX2MUZB3qWAricmyjD42kqGkmKjUSyV5YiJb-rIafTlySS5q" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="347" /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At the end of his presidency, in January, Trump’s Justice Department issued a</span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-seeks-to-curtail-workplace-protections-for-gay-transgender-people-11611091426" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">last-minute memo</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> seeking to limit the scope of </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock’s</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> applicability. Thankfully, Biden both</span><a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/535536-biden-official-withdraws-last-minute-trump-lgbt-memo" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">revoked the memo</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and explicitly instructed his administration to interpret </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> broadly in his Executive Order. In adopting a broad construction of </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bostock</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, the Executive Order says loudly that the Biden administration will consider discrimination on the basis sexual orientation and gender identity to be a form of sex discrimination, prohibited by Title VII. This is an encouraging development, but because it is an Executive Order rather than legislation, it leaves open the possibility that future presidents could take steps backward again, like Trump did.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is where the Equality Act comes in. Instead of including protections for LGBTQ people under the umbrella of “sex discrimination,” the</span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5/text" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Equality Act</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> would Amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add “sexual orientation and gender identity” as their own bases for protection under the Act.</span><a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Currently</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, these bases are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Equality Act would</span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5/text" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">replace</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the word, “sex,” from the Act with, “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity).” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the greatest sources of protection for American workers, with Title VII of the Act prohibiting employment discrimination nationwide. The Equality Act would therefore expand these meaningful protections for American workers to explicitly encompass members of the LGBTQ community. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is important to pass federal protections for LGBTQ workers because currently,</span><a href="https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/the-human-rights-campaign-releases-annual-state-equality-index-ratings" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">27 states</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> have no state-level laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Further, passing the Equality Act would ensure federal-level protection from discrimination even in the unfortunate case that we end up with another President who does not support LGBTQ workers. It is crucial that we do not leave this important civil rights issue up to the whims of a bigoted future President.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thanks to</span><a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/2/26/22303053/house-passes-equality-act-lgbtq-senate" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">decades of hard work</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> by LGBTQ advocacy groups, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Equality Act on February 24, 2021. Hopefully the Senate will look past partisan divides and vote this Act into law swiftly.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bryan Schwartz Law stands with LGBTQ workers. The firm has written about</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search?q=Title+VII" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Title VII</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> many times before. If you believe you have been discriminated against based on your sexual orientation or gender identity, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.</span></span></div></span></span>Cassidy Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11582612782359862890noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-63289873672444002022021-01-29T12:46:00.001-08:002021-01-29T12:46:34.419-08:00California Supreme Court Expands Number of Workers Classified as Employees Rather Than Independent Contractors<p><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">The 2020 presidential election
successfully ousted an administration and political movement that has </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/court-strikes-down-trump-administration.html" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">sought to
undermine workplace protections</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">, and </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/11/i-was-there-day-democracy-survived.html" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">reaffirmed
democracy and the rule of law</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">But it also saw the overwhelming </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/whats-next-for-gig-workers-rights-after.html"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">passage
of Proposition 22</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> in California after gig employers spent a
jaw-dropping </span><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-doordash-lyft-prop-22-spending-200-million-close-polling-2020-10"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">$200,000,000+</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"></span></p> (the
most in California history) to write its own law, much to the dismay of worker
advocates and to the detriment of gig economy workers. Proposition 22 exempts
app-based rideshare and delivery com<br />panies from their responsibilities under landmark
worker protection law A.B. 5 and the Supreme Court of California’s decision in <i>Dynamex
Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) </i>4 Cal.5th 903, <a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/04/historic-victory-for-employees-in.html"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">which
classify drivers as employees</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">.<o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Good news for workers came early
in 2021: the California Supreme Court has determined that the <i>Dynamex </i>decision
applies retroactively to cases that arose before <i>Dynamex </i>was decided in
2018. The decision is </span><a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S258191.PDF"><i><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Vazquez
v. Jan-Pro Financing International, Inc</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9brbmwdR1DBDF2vpHHlQbP2pRHCLk81puS7exCMAVDST6M9F1_liHWCGHWTy-eQW79_-UNxRt6zfMdHNlS_G6vASCXqfTdF17hflGQeKNpoSaE6wB73hjGfCfm7kjI3NIlNWn6xK4IRc/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9brbmwdR1DBDF2vpHHlQbP2pRHCLk81puS7exCMAVDST6M9F1_liHWCGHWTy-eQW79_-UNxRt6zfMdHNlS_G6vASCXqfTdF17hflGQeKNpoSaE6wB73hjGfCfm7kjI3NIlNWn6xK4IRc/" width="320" /></a></div><i><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Dynamex </span></i><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">established
the “ABC test,” a three-part legal test that makes it more difficult for
businesses to ignore worker protections by classifying them as independent
contractors. Under the ABC Test, a business can classify a worker as an
independent contractor only if the employer can show all three parts:<o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 38.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.25pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">A)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The person is free from the control and direction
of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 38.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.25pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">B)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The person performs work that is outside the usual
course of the hiring entity’s business; and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 38.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.25pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">C)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The person is customarily engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as
that involved in the work performed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">If the business cannot prove all three of these parts, the worker is an employee. Unlike independent contractors, employees
are guaranteed protections like sick leave, minimum wage, overtime pay,
reimbursement for their expenses, health insurance, and the right to organize.
Gig employers such as Uber, Lyft, Doordash, and Postmates hoped to avoid these
legal obligations<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to their workers by
bankrolling Proposition 22—which is why its passage was such a stinging </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/whats-next-for-gig-workers-rights-after.html"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">defeat
for gig workers</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">A three-judge panel of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-question-of-timing-dynamex-applies.html"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">had
already held that the ABC test applies retroactively</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> in May
2019, but that did not end the debate. On rehearing, the Ninth Circuit decided
to ask the California Supreme Court what it thought and withdrew its opinion. In
a victory for workers, the California Supreme Court unanimously held on January
14, 2021, that the <i>Dynamex </i>decision should apply retroactively to cases
arising before it was decided.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Judicial decisions like <i>Dynamex
</i>usually apply retroactively, but the defendant here argued that <i>Dynamex</i>
should be an exception because the ABC test was, in their view, a new rule. As
such, according to the defendant, it would not be fair to apply <i>Dynamex </i>retroactively.
The court disagreed, opining that decisions prior to <i>Dynamex </i>had put
hiring entities on notice that the previous state of the law regarding
independent contractor status was not firmly settled. To the contrary, the
court stated that “fairness and policy considerations underlying our decision
in Dynamex <i>favor</i> retroactive application,” because workers’ protections
enable “them to provide at least minimally for themselves and their families
and to accord them a modicum of dignity and self-respect.” If <i>Dynamex </i>were
not applied retroactively, the court feared that many workers would be denied
the intended protections of California law. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Though this is a victory, it is a
limited one. Statutes of limitations already restrict the number of workers who
may assert their rights as employees improperly misclassified as independent
contractors. However, </span><a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-high-court-ABC-test-for-gig-15871187.php"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Proposition
22 does not apply retroactively</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">, meaning that gig workers have a
window in which to exercise their legal rights in light of this decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">If you have wrongly classified as
an independent contractor instead of an employee, </span><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">contact Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. </span><o:p></o:p></p>SLGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10039262863993879059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-23253370548197517192020-12-30T13:40:00.001-08:002020-12-30T13:40:23.038-08:00Tackling Sex Discrimination in Big Tech: Pinterest and Beyond<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br />The tech industry has a sex discrimination problem. It’s no
secret. Like much of the white-collar workforce, </span><a href="file:///C:/Users/bryan.BSL/Downloads/shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/pages/disrupting-the-tech-profession-gender-gap.aspx"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">men
dominate the tech sector</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. Women hold less than 20% of the technical
jobs at some of the largest tech giants. As of 2019, only about 11% of women in
tech held supervisory roles. Tech-employed women are paid less than their male
counterparts, the subject of (for example) <a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/05/certified-thousands-of-oracle-women.html">a
certified class action against Oracle</a>.<span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwRPqler8HSRZkwTd2qbbDz9YUQlRyBE85XmvIfYMnZVxhXqacU2m9LBR8I3e_nKPnzBplrXf1DXJdwqTnYL46PuasWmIRjTrZluev2zJcBcas4kltR_xH2H6QV4pDokvjowz_zxedn8w/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwRPqler8HSRZkwTd2qbbDz9YUQlRyBE85XmvIfYMnZVxhXqacU2m9LBR8I3e_nKPnzBplrXf1DXJdwqTnYL46PuasWmIRjTrZluev2zJcBcas4kltR_xH2H6QV4pDokvjowz_zxedn8w/w400-h225/2020+03+11+Gender+Pay+Gap.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The dearth of women in tech has negative implications for
consumers and society at large. Many tech products are designed with men in
mind, such as </span><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/are-the-new-iphones-too-big-for-womens-hands/379911/"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">smartphones
too large for the average woman’s hands</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">, </span><a href="https://hbr.org/2019/05/voice-recognition-still-has-significant-race-and-gender-biases"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">voice recognition
software that understands men better than women</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">, and </span><a href="https://caroltorgan.com/activity-tracker-accuracy/"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">fitness
trackers that don’t count steps while performing household chores or pushing a
stroller</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. Software and artificial intelligence have </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">repeatedly
been shown to exhibit race and sex bias</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. <o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The male-dominated tech industry has proven resistant to
addressing the field’s bias and its wider implications. For instance, </span><a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/12/18/947918291/google-researcher-discusses-departure"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Google
terminated</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> (it would say “accepted the resignation of”) Timnit Gebru, an
Ethiopian-born engineer, after she declined to retract an academic research
paper examining the bias risks of Google’s artificial intelligence concerning
languages (implicating, for example, predictive text). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">One large tech company that came under fire for sex bias,
Pinterest (a platform with a predominantly female user base), </span><a href="https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/the-pinterest-paradox-cupcakes-and-toxicity-57ed6bd76960"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">settled a
sex discrimination lawsuit filed by former chief operating officer Francoise
Brougher for $22.5 million</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. Ms.
Brougher’s settlement, achieved by Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, </span></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">represents
a major victory for marginalized women in the tech world. Ms. Brougher’s
lawsuit came on the heels of the June resignations of Pinterest employees Ifeoma
Ozoma and Aerica Shimizu Banks and their public airing exposing of the
explicitly racist and sexist comments they endured at the company, their lower
pay, and the retaliatory treatment they experienced when they spoke out.
Brougher’s lawsuit similarly alleged that her pay structure was less favorable
than that of her male executive counterparts, she was given feedback riddled
with gender bias, and she was left out of executive meetings that were
necessary for her to perform her job, until she was fired in April 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The publicity following these courageous women’s actions seems
to be having an impact on the company. After more than 200 employees virtually
walked out in the female former employees’ support, and </span><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/1/21755406/pinterest-shareholders-lawsuit-sue-toxic-work-culture-discrimination"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">shareholders
sued Pinterest</span></a><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> for damaging the company’s reputation and stock value
with its toxic work culture, Pinterest added two Black female members to its
board of directors, hired a new head of inclusion and diversity, and made other
changes to address its culture of bias. Hopefully, Pinterest will listen to
these voices rather than cutting them out as they did with Brougher, or as
Google did with Ms. Gebru. The $22.5 million settlement for just one
high-profile discrimination victim should give Pinterest and other tech
companies ample incentive to work to prevent workplace discrimination against
countless women going forward. If these companies fail to do so, the settlement
should encourage other marginalized women in tech to come forward. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">If you are a woman who has
experienced sex discrimination in the tech industry, or if you have experienced
other discrimination or harassment in the workplace, </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">contact Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">. </span></div></span>SLGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10039262863993879059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-67104689418426547972020-12-17T13:57:00.000-08:002020-12-17T13:57:56.878-08:00WHAT’S NEXT FOR GIG WORKERS’ RIGHTS AFTER PROP. 22?<p> </p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While the COVID-19
pandemic sweeps across this nation, employers are taking advantage of the
pandemic-induced recession to, once again, eliminate jobs and transition
workers into the gig-economy. A </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/business/economy/workers-jobs-training.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">recent
<i>New York Times</i> article</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> highlights the
uncertainty facing today's workers. The labor market has only recovered 12
million of the 22 million jobs lost this past spring, leaving 10 million
formerly employed workers, often in the service-industry, reeling. Many of
these jobs may not return once the pandemic is over and the economy improves,
as happened after the Great Recession of 2008. While the <i>New York Times</i> notes
that these workers often need retraining or additional education to compete for
jobs, gig-economy companies continue to hire these vulnerable workers without
the employment protections to which workers are – or should be - entitled. In
California, the gig-economy companies pulled off a sleight of hand, through the
most disproportionately-funded ballot measure in the state’s history,
Proposition 22 ("Prop. 22"), for the purpose of potentially continuing to exempt
their workers from some of the robust employee protections that California’s
legislature, Governor, Supreme Court and lower courts had previously ensured.
While the ballot measure succeeded, gig-economy workers should still have
claims under the law.</span></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbMstQTlK4r5JVJPgX8QeBOB6r5cfeRp8JC4QqcvlKY8l-quf77UX75K1ZlgdplLQ0cecAL05UG5xlOBjSZeCCyOLxYVsUEI1G1xXozE2t17a6WKZVv9_kAnay6eKPUN_F4Xk3vrr8totH/s2048/Workers%2527+Rights+are+Human+Rights.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1371" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbMstQTlK4r5JVJPgX8QeBOB6r5cfeRp8JC4QqcvlKY8l-quf77UX75K1ZlgdplLQ0cecAL05UG5xlOBjSZeCCyOLxYVsUEI1G1xXozE2t17a6WKZVv9_kAnay6eKPUN_F4Xk3vrr8totH/s320/Workers%2527+Rights+are+Human+Rights.jpg" /></a></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The roots of today's gig-economy employment
crisis began in 2008. At that time, </span><a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2018/12/19/what-we-learned-jobs/"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">9
million workers lost their jobs</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">. In its
aftermath, workers often found less secure employment and/or relied on
alternative work like being an independent contractor in the gig economy. Unsurprisingly,
a plethora of gig-economy companies, like DoorDash, Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and
Postmates, have risen to be market leaders on the backs of these marginalized
workers that they have treated as independent contractors exempt from legal protections.
In response to the rise of the gig economy and the precarious position of
gig-economy workers, all three branches of California government - the courts,
legislature, and executive branch - re-affirmed that many gig-economy workers
are employees entitled to the legal protections of the California Labor Code.
Such protections include minimum wage (Cal. Lab. Code § 1194, among others),
overtime (Cal. Lab. Code § 510), reimbursement for business expenses (Cal. Lab.
Code § 2802), and paid sick leave (Cal. Lab. Code §246). Here at Bryan Schwartz
Law, we have written extensively about California's efforts to protect gig-economy
workers </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/vote-no-on-proposition-22-to-protect.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
</span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/judge-orders-uber-and-lyft-to-treat.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-decade-new-worker-protections-ab-5.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-question-of-timing-dynamex-applies.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
and </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/04/historic-victory-for-employees-in.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.
In short, the California Supreme Court in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex
Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court</i> held that workers are presumptively
employees subject to the straightforward ABC test, which considers (among other
things) whether the workers are providing the core services of the business
(like those who drive for Uber and Lyft). The California legislature agreed
with the Court and codified the ABC test outlined in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex</i> with A.B. 5, which the Governor signed, and went into
effect on January 1, 2020. The Attorney General of California has sued Uber and
Lyft (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">People v. Uber and Lyft</i> (Sup.
Ct. San Francisco), Case No. CGC-20-584402) to require them to stop
misclassifying their workers under A.B. 5, and won </span><a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-secures-early-court-victory-fight-protect-workers"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">a
preliminary injunction</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> on August 10, 2020 requiring Defendants
to reclassify their drivers as employees during the pendency of the lawsuit.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In
response, several gig-economy companies worked to place Prop. 22 on the ballot.
Prop. 22 exempts from A.B. 5 any <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">app-based
drivers</i> that (a) provide delivery services on-demand through an online
application or platform or (b) use a personal vehicle to provide prearranged
transportation services for compensation through an online application or
platform. In other words, your ride-share drivers and food delivery persons are exempted from A.B. 5's codification of the ABC test. In order to sell Prop. 22
to voters through its advertising blitz, these gig-economy companies promised at
least 120% of the minimum wage (which has been estimated to work out to $5.64
per hour after deducting for wear-and-tear) and 30 cents per mile when engaged
- not waiting for a fare or order. While Prop. 22's passage is a setback for
workers' rights, all may not be lost. Prop 22. may not be retroactive. Prop. 22
appears to be forward-looking and silent as to any worker misclassification
claims that arose prior to Prop. 22's passage. When the Court issued its August
10th preliminary injunction, Judge Schulman appeared to suggest that "it
would not moot out . . . past violations." (Order for Preliminary
Injunction, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">People v. Uber and Lyft </i>(Aug.
10, 2020), p.8). Furthermore, Prop. 22's provisions regarding healthcare
subsidies and mileage reimbursement focus on future dates for payment or
calculation. The remaining provisions do not explicitly discuss retroactive
application except for Article 9. Article 9 provides that the Legislature may
only amend Prop. 22 by a super-super majority - 7/8ths of the Legislature -
including any amendments passed since October 29, 2019 (the date the ballot was
filed). While it appears amending Prop. 22 will be challenging, this suggests
that workers may continue to pursue claims for minimum wage, overtime, and
reimbursement for business expenses that accrued prior to Prop. 22's passage.
Furthermore, the 9th Circuit in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Vazquez
v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.</i> made clear that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex</i> and the ABC test apply
retroactively. Thus, workers may have significant misclassification claims that
have accrued prior Prop. 22's passage.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Moreover,
while Prop. 22 may have exempted gig-economy workers from the protections
conferred upon them by A.B. 5 and the ABC test, gig-economy workers may be
employees under other relevant tests. The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex</i>
court extensively discussed 3 alternative tests (from <i>Martinez v. Combs</i>)
for employment under California’s Wage Orders: 1) to exercise control over
wages, hours, or working conditions; 2) to suffer or permit to work; and 3) to
engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship. You can learn
more about these 3 alternative tests </span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/getting-bad-guys-to-pay.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Borello </i>test for common law
employment relationships </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2015/09/uber-drivers-granted-class-action.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.
The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex</i> court only applied the
ABC Test with respect to the second alterative test: to suffer or permit to
work. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex </i>(2018) 4 Cal.5th 903,
965. In enacting A.B. 5, the Legislature declared its intent to codify the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex </i>decision that "interpreted
one of the three alternative definitions of 'employ,' the 'suffer or permit'
definition . . . [and that] [n]othing in this act . . . affect[s] the
application of alternative definitions . . . not addressed by the holding of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex</i>. Assembly Bill 5, Section 1(d)
and (f), 2019-2020, Reg. Sess. The statute itself takes a more precise
alternative in requiring that if a court rules the ABC test does not apply to a
particular context, then the common law relationship test from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Borello</i></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> should be used. Labor Code </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">§</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> 2750(a)(3).</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> Thus, A.B. 5's
codification of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dynamex</i> and the ABC test
does not apply to the first and third alternative tests. Therefore, Prop. 22's
exemption from A.B. 5 is limited to the second alternative test. With Prop.
22's passage and A.B. 5's statement that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Borello</i> common law relationship test applies in the event a court
exempts a particular situation from the ABC test, it is unclear which test
shall be used to demonstrate that gig-economy workers are employees because
Prop. 22, not a court, preempted A.B. 5. Workers may be employees under the
first and/or third (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Borello</i>) tests
and therefore entitled to the full protection of the California Labor Code.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Despite
Prop. 22's passage, the fight for workers' rights continues. Gig-economy workers
may still have misclassification claims moving forward. Workers and their
advocates must recognize that while the fight may become more difficult after
the misguided passage of Prop. 22, there are still avenues for pursuing these
claims. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-51183918633944494652020-11-10T14:21:00.006-08:002020-11-10T14:34:03.434-08:00I was there the day democracy survived.<p><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: arial; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieskNwcl56aziwveY1qb3P8jYdXVBlAPn9Z2VbtOkRtXIZIsQm24lF7kyVQQQfK-EWpJ9yEJDGMhbNA21fV4slq6x0ZQV-Hqw3fyjo1l8Zc651VqTJWfNsrQNlJD8ynry-MzqL3zIRuYw/s2048/election+day+2020.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieskNwcl56aziwveY1qb3P8jYdXVBlAPn9Z2VbtOkRtXIZIsQm24lF7kyVQQQfK-EWpJ9yEJDGMhbNA21fV4slq6x0ZQV-Hqw3fyjo1l8Zc651VqTJWfNsrQNlJD8ynry-MzqL3zIRuYw/s320/election+day+2020.jpg" /></span></a></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: arial; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;">I
was there the day democracy survived, one week and 10,000 refresh-browser-checking-election-returns
ago. I patrolled the hundred-foot zone. I held the line. I chased down people
who cast provisional ballots. I reported wait times every hour. I bore witness.
Every vote counted.<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We learned this 20
years ago, when 537 people out of 282 million Americans decided our fate. We
need poll observers for democracy to work. Someone has to be there to protect
the vote. That someone is me, and thousands like me, standing vigil, to prevent
people from being prevented from being counted. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: arial;">So, all day I counted
at Reed High School, in Sparks, Nevada – the busiest polling place in Washoe
County, the swing county in a swing state.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: black; font-family: arial; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">6:30 a.m. The air was on the cusp of
<span class="il">freezing</span></span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-family: arial;">, and I was already pacing purposefully as dozens in Covid masks were lining
up, socially distanced. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I walked up and down the line to keep warm, yes, to work off nerves, too,
but mostly to see everything, let nothing escape. </span>I took note of
where the 100-foot line was, the zone within which electioneering was prohibited.<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: arial;">8:06 a.m. Over 150
people are lined up to vote. We tracked a particular guy from the end of the
line to the polling place. 1 hour wait...</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><span>8:11 a.m. Police car
parked toward the end of the line. No idea why. 8:13 a.m. Apparently he works
patrolling the school. 8:14 a.m. The two police officers came in and
checked in with Kim the polling site manager, introduced themselves and gave
her a card with their names and a number to call if she needed anything. 8:28
a.m. Police car staying parked out front. No one seems intimidated, but it
is worth noting. </span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><span>8:29 a.m. Line is
moving, about 30 people every 15 min and 150+ in line.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><span>9:42
a.m. What’s the deal with the Fox News cameraman taking footage of voters
voting? He literally has his camera pointing at the visible screen of a voter!
That’s not ok, speak to the poll manager.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">10:09
a.m. 45-minute wait time now at Reed High. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">10:20
a.m. Still 110 people in line. We got the registrar of voters to send help
to open extra voting stations. Hope they help.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">11:22
a.m. Let the polling place manager know about extended DMV hours, for people
needing identification.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">12:35
p.m. The shortest line of the day – “only” 60-70 people in line to vote now.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">12:51
p.m. 40-minute wait to vote – still long, but not for lack of effort by the
polling location staff, who seem to be working without breaks, everyone in
masks or face shields. Their efforts are heroic.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">12:52
a.m. They are getting another table with a registration machine and a trained
person to do intake. There are numerous voting machines available at any one
time, but the bottleneck is with processing people so they can go vote. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1:30
p.m. There have been several people decked out in Trump gear who argue with the
poll manager when asked to take off their walking billboards within the
100-foot zone. One lady in a Trump hat, shirt, keychain, and mask is shouting
at the poll manager, claiming that she took a poll observer course and knows
her constitutional rights. (Paul, one of the election workers, comments – “Hmm,
I wonder which poll observer course that was…”). Ultimately, the voter complies.
She knew she was breaking the rule and decided to test it – she had an extra mask
and extra shirt at the ready. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
rule is applied consistently. A young man from “Vote Tripling” – part of Rock
the Vote – says he should be allowed within the 100-foot zone because he is “non-partisan.”
He backs up across the 100-foot line when the poll manager says, “Do me a favor,
just move beyond the zone.” He stands just beyond the marker and thanks people
for voting, asking them to commit to finding two others to vote today.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2:38
p.m. The additional intake person has arrived.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2:49
p.m. The wait is like 40 minutes, which is frustrating because there are a ton
of empty machines and a long line waiting outside. They could use 3 more people
to do intake.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3:13
p.m. There was an observer who said he was there “for the Trump administration,”
who made one of the Democratic volunteers uncomfortable by being “pretty agro.”</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3:15
p.m. There are Trump SUVs honking through the parking lot – but not within the
100-foot zone.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3:19
p.m. News cameras are pointing at people while they are waiting in line – they can
do that as long as they’re not filming over someone’s shoulder while they vote.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3:48
p.m. Was 41 min. from the end of the line to voting, and the line is getting
much longer.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3:54
p.m. We are back up to about 110-120 people on the line.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3:56
p.m. The poll boss is currently telling people to go to Sky Ranch, a middle
school polling location less than 10 minutes away with no waiting. No one budges.
</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">4:29
p.m. Yes, the good news is voters are staying calm and sticking around, so far.
Kim (the boss) is really, really good.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">4:38
p.m. It is still an hour-long experience to vote. Despite the discomfort, people
are enduring it to exercise their franchise.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">5:48
p.m. The line is growing – it is still about an hour wait.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">6:21
p.m. A solid hour – people will be waiting long after the poll closes at 7 p.m.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A
poll worker went to voters with canes or walkers or wheelchairs to give them
special fast passes to the front of the line. As it was growing dark outside,
one man over 80 with a walker said proudly he preferred to wait, just like
everyone else. He was chatting with his "voting buddy," a young woman
he had met in line who said she would make sure he made it in and out of the
poll ok. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In
the line, there are groups of co-workers from construction sites and EMTs, first-time
voters taking selfies, white working-class folks, Mexican families, African-American
couples, geeks, hipsters, and rockers – there are, in short, every type of
American. In the end, Washoe County voted 50.9% Biden to 46.2% Trump –the
nation voted 50.7% Biden to 47.6% Trump. What I saw at Reed High School mirrors
what happened in America last Tuesday.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">There
were four other Democratic volunteers through the day. There were too
many volunteers to count, from “Election Protection – 866-Our-Vote” (sponsored
by Common Cause and other non-profits) – they were giving out snacks. One woman
from the group was there for over 13 hours, like my wife and me. Like me, she scarcely
sat down. I told her I had never seen so many people just waiting to vote and
she confessed she had never seen people vote at all- she must have been 19 or
20 years old. There were workers and a food truck from “Pizza to the Polls,” keeping
the long line well-fed. Late in the day, more volunteers arrived to help, from Unite
Here, a union organization. And, of course, there were always several
Republican poll observers. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">One
woman who was our "rover" stopping by from the Democratic party to
check in through the day, eventually decided to stay with us at around 5 p.m.,
and she was the last one to leave, after every vote had been counted, hours
after the poll had closed – 1,503 votes in all at Reed High School. I knew her
maybe 10 years ago as opposing counsel on a case- she is a career employment
defense lawyer. It was good to be on the same side now.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This
voter protection army should have been there in 2000 when thousands of blacks
without criminal records were turned away from the polls in Florida as
ex-felons, when hundreds of Palm Beach Jewish grandparents were confused by the
ballot into punching their votes for a known anti-Semite who otherwise got
about one quarter of one percent of the vote in Florida (Buchanan – remember him?).
We should have known that where the candidate's brother was the state 's
governor, we needed eyes on the polls. We could have made sure every vote
counted, if we were there, long before it got to the partisan Supreme Court,
with members appointed by the president-elect's father sealing his victory. So
that is what we were doing one week ago, on November 3, 2020. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Not another travesty.
Whoever wins will have to have the most votes, when every vote is counted. They
can't steal it if we are there watching, documenting, reporting. Their scowls
won't intimidate us. We are an army dedicated to saving democracy. One person,
one vote, from the President to the pauper, everyone.</span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Well, almost everyone.
William could not vote. A 19 year-old black man, a U.S. Army reservist, he
wanted to cast his first presidential ballot. He was visiting a friend in Reno
the last 12 days. His driver's license was issued in Las Vegas. The on-line
voting site is only for active duty military and the disabled. He is not
disabled – he is fit, on stand-by to fight for America. But he is not a
"full-time" soldier. An hour of calls with hotlines, reading the
Veterans Administration website and checking Black's Law dictionary - an active
reservist probably cannot say he's “active duty.” Sorry, William. Thank you for
your service but you cannot vote and be counted today. </span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">“William – get down to
Vegas now!” I say, only half joking. “Such a shame to miss this important
election. </span>Next time please make it easier on yourself and request
an absentee or electronic ballot in advance! …. Speaking of military – think of
all the brave soldiers – like you – who have fought to give us this birthright
of democracy – where people like us have the power to make changes.” William
says, “Your encouragement through pathos has truly inspired me. Bryan, thank
you so much for being an amazing human.” <span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Today, as I celebrate
democracy, that we managed to prevail in the nation’s 25<sup>th</sup> closest presidential
election (2016 was the 13<sup>th</sup> closest), by making sure all the votes were
counted, I end with a bittersweet note. Tomorrow, on Veterans Day, I will be thinking
of William and others who have fought to give us the right to choose our leaders
– and will be thinking of those whose votes have not been counted, and of those
ominous forces who would seek to rule over us, even without the votes. </span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: arial; mso-color-alt: windowtext; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I
know, first hand, that nobody stole anything in this election. But, Trump is
trying, now. Because of what we did, bearing witness, and what Americans did, having
faith in democracy, standing for millions of hours, making innumerable special
trips to the post office or ballot drop-offs, all across the country, thousands
of people counting ballots through the night from Atlanta to Philadelphia,
Phoenix to Detroit, Madison to Sparks, Trump will fail, again, just as he
failed the last four years to kill what makes us Americans. “We the People,” as President-elect Joe Biden reminded us, will always prevail.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Bryan Schwartz Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10509090710437656270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-56571499716638780242020-10-19T11:55:00.006-07:002020-10-19T12:00:06.146-07:00Trump Policy to Stop Covid-19 Relief Found Unlawful<p style="text-align: justify;">A federal court in California recently <a href="https://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/order-re-summary-judgment.pdf" target="_blank">struck down</a> the Trump Administration policy that prevented currently and formerly incarcerated individuals from receiving their $1,200 stimulus payments under the COVID-19 lockdown relief bill. The preliminary injunction requires the U.S. Treasury, the IRS, and the United States of America to stop withholding CARES Act stimulus funds from individuals based solely on their incarcerated status. The case is <i>Scholl v. Mnuchin</i>, 20-cv-05309-PJH. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOhrBAWsA1U9XotDYZBor_uSJUiULnXrbeNjfqy8hcU3L5ck6aCWSPYqUeE6BVsGWNhM8JYWFvj-Y6IDg0j1Jus0EPuExzPPY4xXntJZZxs_z78pRZLGC3c1GSikolIwQ5s62QrxzkrBc/s1649/Prison+Image.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="1649" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOhrBAWsA1U9XotDYZBor_uSJUiULnXrbeNjfqy8hcU3L5ck6aCWSPYqUeE6BVsGWNhM8JYWFvj-Y6IDg0j1Jus0EPuExzPPY4xXntJZZxs_z78pRZLGC3c1GSikolIwQ5s62QrxzkrBc/w594-h229/Prison+Image.jpg" width="594" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">Because of the decision, thousands of currently and formerly incarcerated folks will now be entitled to the $1,200 check that non-incarcerated Americans have already received. For more information about who is eligible and how to file, please visit the IRS’s “<a href="https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-information-center" target="_blank">Economic Impact Payment Information Center</a>.” </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Congress passed the CARES Act to help stimulate the economy during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Act allocates, among other things, $1,200 to “eligible individuals,” as well as $500 for each qualifying child. An “eligible individual” is defined as “any individual” other than: (1) someone who isn’t an American citizen, (2) any individual who is claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return, and (3) an estate or trust. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6428#:~:text=2020%20Recovery%20rebates%20for%20individuals,-U.S.%20Code&text=an%20amount%20equal%20to%20the%20product%20of%20%24500%20multiplied%20by,c))%20of%20the%20taxpayer.&text=The%20credit%20allowed%20by%20subsection,subchapter%20A%20of%20chapter%201." target="_blank">26 U.S.C. § 6428(d)</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though the Act did not explicitly or impliedly exclude incarcerated people, the Trump Administration refused to issue checks to anyone currently in prison or jail. In fact, after the IRS sent 84,861 payments to incarcerated individuals, the government required them to return the payments. Plaintiffs Colin Scholl and Lisa Strawn filed a class action on behalf of themselves and other currently and formerly incarcerated persons, asserting that excluding them from the COVID-19 relief was unlawful. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The court’s injunction rejected the Trump administration’s practice of withholding CARES Act payments from individuals on the basis of their history of incarceration, at least until trial. The court also certified the class, so that all those Americans denied relief in this manner could proceed together. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The court recognized the current economic reality faced by many incarcerated individuals across the U.S., and subsequently, how refusal of the CARES Act payment has caused and would continue to cause “irreparable harm.” Most individuals who enter prison were economically disadvantaged beforehand. Inmates often must purchase basic necessities to survive while incarcerated, as the court explained:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: justify;">[P]risons do not provide all basic necessities required by incarcerated persons, including food and hygiene. With respect to food, incarcerated people supplement their food with items from the commissary, especially since … some institutions have reduced the number of calories or meals provided to inmates…. [S]ome penal institutions require inmates to pay for their own soap and personal hygiene items. </p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Scholl v. Mnuchin</i>, at 31.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The economic strain on family and loved ones of inmates has only intensified since the pandemic struck. <i>Id</i> at 31. As of October 15th, there are <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/05/01/a-state-by-state-look-at-coronavirus-in-prisons" target="_blank">1,560 cases per 10,000 prisoners in California</a>, which is 623% higher than California overall. In the first three months of the pandemic, more than <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/07/thousands-of-sick-federal-prisoners-sought-compassionate-release-98-percent-were-denied" target="_blank">10,000 federal prisoners applied for compassionate release</a>, though only 156 were approved. Many states have <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/03/17/tracking-prisons-response-to-coronavirus" target="_blank">suspended visitation</a>--including legal visits--all together. The pandemic, as well as the opinion itself, raises concerns about whether America’s prisons are humane, if inmates do not have necessities for survival.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Court found that the Trump administration’s interpretation of the CARES Act would likely be considered “arbitrary and capricious.” <i>Scholl v. Mnuchin</i>, at 28. “Defendants have not directed the court to any other evidence indicating that the Treasury Department or IRS gave <u>any reason</u> for its decision, much less an adequate one.” <i>Id</i>. at 34.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Among other things, Trump’s administration claimed that the plaintiffs had shown no injury, but the court found that the denial of CARES ACT payments now, when they are most needed, was a sufficient injury. <i>Id</i>. at 11-12.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For more information about the case, please visit Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein’s blog post, “<a href="https://www.lieffcabraser.com/2020/09/federal-judge-certifies-class-orders-trump-administration-to-stop-denying-pandemic-relief-funds-to-incarcerated-persons/" target="_blank">Federal Judge Certifies Class, Orders Trump Administration to Stop Denying Pandemic Relief Funds to Incarcerated Persons</a>.” For information about the impact of COVID-19 on incarcerated people, please visit Equal Justice Initiative’s article, “<a href="https://eji.org/news/covid-19s-impact-on-people-in-prison/" target="_blank">COVID-19’s Impact on People in Prison</a>.” </p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-76781868564462675182020-10-12T18:29:00.002-07:002020-10-13T15:11:06.126-07:00Vote No on Proposition 22 to Protect Workers<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By now, most California voters have received their vote-by-mail ballots. One of the most critical issues on the ballot this year is <a href="https://nooncaprop22.com/">Proposition 22</a>.</span><a href="https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/" style="text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Prop 22</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> would reverse the California Supreme Court, legislature, and Governor in order to provide a windfall to ultra-rich corporations like Uber and Lyft. Prop 22 seeks to classify app-based drivers as “independent contractors,” rather than “employees,” denying drivers worker protections that are required by law to be afforded to all employees.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, and Postmates have spent over</span><a href="https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-resources/measure-contributions/2020-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-22-changes-employment-classification-rules-app-based-transportation-and-delivery-drivers-initiative-statute" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">$180 million</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> trying to boost their profits at the expense of hard-working drivers, in the Prop 22 campaign. They have tried to mislead voters so that they do not have to pay their workers as the law requires. Voters must look past the barrage of pro-Prop 22 advertising and vote NO to protect workers. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8PE4UNQ6810jnfxwMhUE7Fta_WOXSTWw4ObwlstpmeC5J1sqV0kjd-lswVdw4Yym9u-8L35fIiTWQv6Jsav_PIIqUpT-Sn4GJBOZRVF1cTD1zSCPA1arpetmYpMHd1ZYRdaWyciKGYGYq/s2048/iStock-1211285454.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8PE4UNQ6810jnfxwMhUE7Fta_WOXSTWw4ObwlstpmeC5J1sqV0kjd-lswVdw4Yym9u-8L35fIiTWQv6Jsav_PIIqUpT-Sn4GJBOZRVF1cTD1zSCPA1arpetmYpMHd1ZYRdaWyciKGYGYq/s320/iStock-1211285454.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">Here is what is really going on: Prop 22 would exempt app-based rideshare and delivery companies from their responsibilities under</span><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline;">A.B. 5</span></a><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"> and the Supreme Court of California’s decision in</span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-decade-new-worker-protections-ab-5.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Dynamex</span></a><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">, which currently classify drivers as employees. Unlike true independent contractors (like plumbers and electricians who come to fix something in your home or office), employees are guaranteed protections like minimum wage, overtime pay, reimbursement for their expenses, health insurance, and the right to organize. Via Prop 22, the ride-hailing and delivery companies are attempting to avoid providing their drivers with such protections.</span></div></span><p></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bryan Schwartz Law has written about A.B. 5 and </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dynamex </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">many times, for example:</span><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/judge-orders-uber-and-lyft-to-treat.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">,</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-decade-new-worker-protections-ab-5.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">,</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/09/congratulations-on-your-courage.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">,</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-question-of-timing-dynamex-applies.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, and</span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/04/historic-victory-for-employees-in.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. To recap, A.B. 5 was signed into law in September of 2019, and codified the “ABC Test” laid out in </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dynamex</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Under the ABC Test, a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor if:</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A)</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work;</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">B)</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">C)</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Uber, Lyft, and others to avoid paying wages, they are trying to say that driving customers is outside the usual course of what Uber and Lyft do and that the drivers are</span><a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-may-have-to-temporarily-shut-down-in-california-if-it-has-to-reclassify-drivers-ceo-says/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not central</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to the companies’ core business. They are just “technology platforms” – not companies that provide rides. Really? We’ve taken some Uber and Lyft rides – sure seems like they’re providing rides, and that the drivers are the way they do it!</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">They are lying, to say that Uber and Lyft drivers are like those contract plumbers and electricians with their own independent businesses. Given the amount of control ride-hailing and delivery companies have over their workers and the drivers’ centrality to their business model, app-based drivers have to be considered employees under the ABC Test.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Courts have gotten tired of the companies’ lies and their refusal to follow the law, which is why they came up with Prop 22. For example, in an August 10 order, Judge Ethan Schulman of the San Francisco Superior Court</span><a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge-orders-uber-and-lyft-to-consider-all-drivers-employees" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">reprimanded</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Uber and Lyft, writing, "To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft's entire ride-hailing business."</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to Ballotpedia, Prop 22 is the</span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">most expensive</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> ballot measure ever to appear in California. These companies make billions on the rides the drivers provide, so for them, spending over $180 million to buy your vote with countless</span><a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-lyft-doordash-181-million-campaign-war-chest-goes-heavy-on-ad-blitz/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">television, radio, and digital ads</span></a><span style="color: #0563c1; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">makes sense. Lyft have even sent “Yes on 22”</span><a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-10-08/uber-lyft-novel-tactics-huge-spending-prop-22" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">push notifications</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to customers’ phones and forced them to press “confirm” on a pro-Proposition 22 message, before being able to order a ride.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The ads pretend that the issues are “flexibility” and “independence.” The ads say that if Californians vote No on Prop 22, drivers will lose the flexibility to determine their hours. This is a phony argument. Nothing in the current law that Uber, Lyft, and the other companies are breaking prohibits employers from offering employees flexible schedules or part-time work. Many California employers offer that kind of work currently. One Lyft driver, Jerome Gage, put it perfectly when</span><a href="https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/arguments-rebuttals.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">he wrote</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, “Uber and Lyft claim I want to be ‘independent.’ What I really want is to be safe and paid a living wage. That would give me independence.”</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What Uber, Lyft and the others are not telling you is that a</span><a href="https://transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OnDemandOntheEdge_ExecSum.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">recent survey</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of San Francisco ride-hailing and delivery drivers shows that more than 70% of Uber and Lyft drivers work more than 30 hours a week, including up to “50% who work more than 40 hours and 30% who work more than 50 hours a week.” Many drivers are working full time for Uber and Lyft, without the companies respecting any of the protections that apply to employees. The</span><a href="https://transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OnDemandOntheEdge_ExecSum.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">majority of</span></a><span style="color: #0563c1; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the drivers</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> say that driving for these companies is their primary or sole source of income. These workers deserve to be compensated like employees of these companies, because that is what they are.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Prop 22 purports that drivers will</span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">get guaranteed pay equal to 120% of the minimum wage</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. That rate would be about $15.60 per hour. An</span><a href="https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-uber-lyft-ballot-initiative-guarantees-only-5-64-an-hour-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">analysis by the UC Berkeley Labor Center</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> shows that because of loopholes in Prop 22, the actual hourly pay rate would be closer to $5.64 an hour. You have to factor in unpaid waiting time, unreimbursed waiting time expenses, underpayment for driving expenses, and unpaid payroll taxes and employee benefits. With drivers classified as independent contractors under Prop 22, they would be responsible for costs like vehicle maintenance, gas, car insurance, taxes, and their own health insurance. These costs eat up any “guaranteed pay” by Uber and Lyft.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart support Proposition 22 because it protects their massive profits, not because they care about drivers. Prop 22 allows these companies not only to avoid fairly compensating their workers, but also to</span><a href="https://calaborfed.org/no-on-prop-22-faq/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #954f72; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">avoid</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> paying payroll taxes and contributing to Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance. Every business in California is required to provide baseline protections to their employees. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart should have to follow the law, like other employers.</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Cambria, serif; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor or denied basic employee protections, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.</span></p>Cassidy Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11582612782359862890noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-83055719132914105802020-09-21T13:33:00.003-07:002020-09-21T13:33:49.630-07:00Court Strikes Down Trump Administration Rule to Benefit Wage Violators<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><img alt="" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="847" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguNqxCYn6IZFkTlTCKdxQ3fg9ecW79JUxXLMsDIEJLVRVVPq3SGciQBQRdj4UWQ16BaQXooy0J6C9G9y8SWbvfFMk18NbU_ztedjM8jJB-QuH4QDeX0FcAmOyO4G4Mo4xd6a2ut0uizv4/w363-h178/Lawson+blog+photo.jpg" width="363" /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Recent Trump
Administration efforts to chip away at employee protections under federal law
faced a setback earlier this month. A federal court in New York struck down a
large portion of </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/16/2019-28343/joint-employer-status-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">a
January 2020 Department of Labor (“DOL”) rule</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> that changed how to determine whether
multiple entities are an individual’s employer under the “joint employer
doctrine.” The case is <i>New York v. Scalia</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Non-exempt employees
are entitled to a federal minimum wage and overtime under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). But sometimes it can be tricky to determine who
is supposed to pay these wages when more than one entity directly benefits from
the employee’s work—for example, when an employee works at a franchise or is
placed by a staffing agency. Prior to the new rule, which took effect in March
2020, the Department of Labor’s guidance instructed that, in circumstances like
these, multiple entities could be considered employers of the same individual
if that individual economically depended on the multiple entities. The Trump
Administration rule scrapped this analysis in favor of an employer-friendly
four-factor test based solely on the level of control each possible joint
employer exerts over the worker. The factors in the rejected test were whether
the possible joint employer:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">(i)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hires or fires
the employee;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">(ii)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Supervises
and controls the employee's work schedule or conditions of employment to a
substantial degree;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">(iii)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Determines
the employee's rate and method of payment; or<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">(iv)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Maintains
the employee's employment records.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This change strongly
benefited employers who maintain franchise relationship or rely heavily on
contractors or workers staffed by an agency. This corporate windfall would come
at the expense of workers, who are far less likely to be able to enforce their
FLSA rights under the new standard, if, for example, multiple entities govern
their employment so that no one employer meets the new test. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Seventeen states and
the District of Columbia sued to block the rule, culminating in the decision
striking down much of the rule earlier this month. The Court’s ruling rested on
two main reasons. First, the rule improperly relied solely on the FLSA’s
definition of “employer,” out of context. The FLSA’s definition of “employer” defines
an employer as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an
employer in relation to an <i>employee</i>,” requiring that a court deciding
which entities are liable consider the definition of the term, “employee.” The
definition of “employee,” in turn, necessitates reference to the definition of
“employ.” Accordingly, the Court determined that the DOL should not have taken
the word “employer” out-of-context by ignoring the other statutory definitions
in crafting its employer-friendly rule. In its analysis, the Court emphasized the
background and purpose of the FLSA and noted that the law’s definitions of
“employer,” “employ,” and “employee” are intentionally broad in order to
provide robust protections for workers. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Second, the Court held
that the new rule was too restrictive. The FLSA had intentionally refused to
place its focus entirely on control in order to give the law a broader scope. Although
control could be <i>sufficient</i> to establish joint employer liability, the Trump
Administration rule made control <i>necessary </i>to establish an employer-employee
relationship, which was a step too far. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Court also found
procedural deficiencies with the new rule. For one, the rule deviated from past
DOL interpretations in 1997, 2014, and 2016 without adequate explanation. In
another notable portion of the opinion, the Court observed that the DOL initially
did not consider the cost of the new rule to employees when considering the
rule—the DOL had merely stated that the rule would not affect wages “assuming
that all employers always fulfill their legal obligations,” a position which
the Court aptly described as “silly.” Although the DOL ultimately acknowledged
that the impact of the new rule on wages before passing the rule, the DOL completely
disregarded this impact and ignored an estimate by the Economic Policy
Institute that the new rule would cost employees $1,000,000,000 (a billion
dollars) per year. This decision laid bare the business community’s bald-faced
power grab in passing the new rule, catering to business interests by
short-changing their workers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The ruling was not a
complete victory for employees. The court struck down the new rule only as it
applies to “vertical” joint employer liability, but not “horizontal” joint
employer liability. A “vertical” joint employer relationship involves an
employee who has a relationship with both an employer and another business
contracting the employee’s services (such as a contractor, subcontractor,
staffing agency, or franchise), whereas a “horizontal” relationship involves an
employee who employed by two sufficiently related entities (such as a joint
venture). The Court left the DOL’s changes to “horizontal” joint employment
intact. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
<span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">If you have been denied minimum wage or overtime due, </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/contact"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">contact Bryan Schwartz
Law</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">.<br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></p>SLGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10039262863993879059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-11730631095366969382020-08-14T17:50:00.000-07:002020-08-14T17:50:48.696-07:00Judge Orders Uber and Lyft to Treat Drivers as Employees<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;">On August 10, a California judge issued a </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/472020392/Order-on-People-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-and-Related-Motions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1514734Xc376c2afb36a30e0a31e8c6fc820ad1e&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate" style="color: #954f72; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">remarkable order</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> blocking Uber and Lyft from continuing to misclassify their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. This preliminary injunction from Judge Ethan P. Schulman of San Francisco Superior Court comes as part of the litigation brought by the State of California against Uber and Lyft because of the ride-hailing companies’ flagrant disregard for their duties under Assembly Bill 5 (A.B. 5).</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim5kNaRZDVT8myu0qYzEhQmB4nKgM19ljzzDyM9USgTE96A7bG6ha7D8wrETsMW_NvTPf4R5ozR3L_qsh83-3GOXOxcKer-ZvgoqHRViRmExa9MIIxcN0kjDe9AgUo7A-zyiGsyJHcnoKl/s2803/iStock-1224314323-page-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1122" data-original-width="2803" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim5kNaRZDVT8myu0qYzEhQmB4nKgM19ljzzDyM9USgTE96A7bG6ha7D8wrETsMW_NvTPf4R5ozR3L_qsh83-3GOXOxcKer-ZvgoqHRViRmExa9MIIxcN0kjDe9AgUo7A-zyiGsyJHcnoKl/w400-h160/iStock-1224314323-page-001.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">A.B. 5</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> codified the Supreme Court of California’s decision in <i><span style="background: white;">Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court </span></i><span style="background: white;">(2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, and was </span></span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/09/congratulations-on-your-courage.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="background: white; font-family: Cambria, serif;">signed into law</span></a><span style="background: white; font-family: Cambria, serif;"> in September of 2019. Under A.B. 5 and <i>Dynamex</i>, drivers for Uber and Lyft should be considered employees, not independent contractors. Despite this, Uber and Lyft have continued to misclassify their drivers as independent contractors. Hopefully, the August 10 injunction forces the companies to finally change course.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; font-family: Cambria, serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; font-family: Cambria, serif;">The court highlighted that when companies like Uber and Lyft misclassify their employees as independent contractors, they deprive them of access to </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">basic workers’ rights and protections including minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, health insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family leave. These worker protections are extremely important to working families and the economy as a whole, especially in the face of the challenges posed by a pandemic. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The court </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/472020392/Order-on-People-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-and-Related-Motions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1514734Xc376c2afb36a30e0a31e8c6fc820ad1e&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">explains</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> that in order to grant a preliminary injunction of Uber and Lyft’s violations of A.B. 5, the government must demonstrate that it had a reasonable probability of prevailing, with a presumption that the nonissuance of an injunction would be harmful to the public. This is different than in an ordinary case with private parties, where the party seeking the injunction faces a higher burden. This is because by enacting a statute, the legislature has already determined that a violation goes against the public interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">In this case, </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/472020392/Order-on-People-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-and-Related-Motions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1514734Xc376c2afb36a30e0a31e8c6fc820ad1e&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">the court opined</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> that the government demonstrated an “overwhelming likelihood” of prevailing and that “substantial public harm” will result without an injunction. According to the court, Uber and Lyft’s violations of A.B. 5 pose, “real harms to real working people.” Under <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5" style="color: #954f72;">A.B. 5’s “ABC” test</a>, a person is properly classified as an independent contractor if: (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work; (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The judge in this decision primarily examined element B, which requires that the work performed be “outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” Uber <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/472020392/Order-on-People-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-and-Related-Motions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1514734Xc376c2afb36a30e0a31e8c6fc820ad1e&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate" style="color: #954f72;">argued</a>, <a href="https://time.com/5675637/uber-business-future/" style="color: #954f72;">as it has before</a>, that it is a technology company, rather than a company that provides car rides, and that its “<i>actual</i> employees” work in engineering, development, marketing, and operations. Driving, the company insists, is not part of Uber’s usual course of business. The court rejected this argument, instead insisting that Uber could not survive without its drivers. Because drivers are central to Uber and Lyft's business models, they should be classified as employees. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Since the August 10 order, Uber and Lyft have <a href="https://ktla.com/news/california/uber-lyft-threaten-to-leave-california-if-court-upholds-ruling-forcing-them-to-treat-drivers-as-employees/" style="color: #954f72;">threatened to halt operations in California</a>, and Judge Schulman has <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/08/14/judge-rejects-uber-lyft-bids-to-delay-california-driver-reclassification/" style="color: #954f72;">denied the companies’ request for an extension</a> of the deadline to appeal. Uber and Lyft have been attempting to delay their compliance with A.B. 5 because the companies are funding a ballot measure, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)" style="color: #954f72;">Proposition 22</a>, which would re-classify drivers as independent contractors. In issuing the injunction, however, the <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/472020392/Order-on-People-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-and-Related-Motions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1514734Xc376c2afb36a30e0a31e8c6fc820ad1e&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate" style="color: #954f72;">judge explained</a> that he could not excuse the companies from compliance with A.B. 5 simply because they are waiting to see if Proposition 22 passes in November.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Bryan Schwartz Law has written about A.B. 5 and <i>Dynamex</i> </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-decade-new-worker-protections-ab-5.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">, </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/09/congratulations-on-your-courage.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">, </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-question-of-timing-dynamex-applies.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">, and </span><a href="https://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2018/04/historic-victory-for-employees-in.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">. If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Cassidy Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11582612782359862890noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195531732750182551.post-57793132996376097312020-07-30T13:39:00.000-07:002020-07-30T13:39:33.979-07:00Ashley Judd’s Sexual Harassment Case Against Harvey Weinstein Can Go Forward<div class="separator"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals </span><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/29/19-55499.pdf" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">reversed</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> the district court dismissal of actor Ashley Judd’s sexual harassment claim against former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The Ninth Circuit opinion allows Judd’s sexual harassment claim to go forward. This decision illustrates how sexual harassment claims are not limited to standard employer/employee or service provider/client relationships.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1560" data-original-width="1920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBEGSoGvfsZVSxDQX06TQ6Y7IyODWknlMWv1Dzer2puqPXqrNPOrJm0XeEzBIYX7_Fig7Ta4Q55sFf0T5EI0XhYXepNWkR5WeRh68brxCQXU9gFXpO_v2m1sIMGRrK5URXQruylIPua0K6/s320/Ashley+Judd%25E2%2580%2599s+Sexual+Harassment+Case+Against+Harvey+Weinstein+Can+Go+Forward.jpg" width="320" /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Judd <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/29/19-55499.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">alleges</a> that she was sexually harassed by Weinstein in 1996 or 1997, when she was starting her acting career and Weinstein was a powerful producer. Judd says Weinstein harassed her during a meeting intended to discuss potential acting opportunitie</span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">s. After she rejected his advances, Judd claims Weinstein prevented her from being cast in movies he produced. Notably, Judd alleges that Weinstein blocked her casting in </span><i style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Lord of the Rings</i><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> adaptations in retaliation. In fact, the reason Judd can bring her suit so many years after the usual statute of limitations has passed is because she says did not discover that Weinstein had been retaliating against her until Peter Jackson, who directed, produced, and wrote </span><i style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Lord of the Rings</i><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> films, gave an interview in 2017 about Weinstein’s actions against Judd. </span><i style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">See <span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">Judd v. Weinstein</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">, No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2018). Judd was able to use California’s “discovery rule,” which is an exception to the general rules regarding statutes of limitation. Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitation begins to run not when the injury occurs, but instead when the plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the cause of action. </span><i style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">See </i><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *4.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/entertainment/ashley-judd-harvey-weinstein-lawsuit/index.html" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Among other claims</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">, Judd sued Weinstein in April 2018 for sexual harassment in a professional relationship under </span><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=51.9.&lawCode=CIV" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">California Civil Code Section 51.9</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">. While allowing her other claims to go forward, the United States District Court of the Central District of California </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/media/ashley-judd-lawsuit-harvey-weinstein.html?auth=login-google" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">dismissed</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> Judd’s sexual harassment claim because it believed Judd and Weinstein did not have the requisite type of professional relationship described in section 51.9.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Section 51.9 is part of California’s </span><a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Unruh Civil Rights Act</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">, which prohibits business discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. Section 51.9 specifically prohibits sexual harassment in a variety of business relationships outside the workplace. Over the years, section 51.9 has been amended to specifically cover producer/actor relationships. However, because the alleged harassment occurred in 1996 or 1997, the court </span><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/29/19-55499.pdf" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">clarifies</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> that it must use the 1996 version of section 51.9.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">In 1996, as <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/29/19-55499.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">the Ninth Circuit explains</a>, the law required the plaintiff to have a certain type of business, service, or professional relationship with the defendant. The 1996 statute listed examples of the types of professional relationships covered by the law, including those between plaintiffs and physicians, attorneys, social workers, accountants, teachers, real estate agents, landlords, and other specific professions. The statute also covered relationships, “substantially similar to any of the above.” Because the relationship between an actor and a producer was not specifically enumerated in the statute, Judd argued that her professional relationship with Weinstein was substantially similar to those listed. The district court disagreed, holding that the defining characteristic of the enumerated relationships was that they were all between service providers and clients.</span> <i><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">See</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *9. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Because Weinstein and Judd did not have a service provider/client relationship, the district court dismissed her claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Judd. The </span><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/29/19-55499.pdf" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Ninth Circuit’s reversal</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> of the district court opinion states that the key element in the enumerated relationships is that, “an inherent power imbalance exists such that, by virtue of his or her ‘business, service, or professional’ position, one party is uniquely situated to exercise coercion or leverage over the other.” Because Judd was an actor at the beginning of her career and Weinstein was an established and powerful Hollywood producer, their relationship may have been defined by an inherent power imbalance. Under the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of section 51.9, Judd and Weinstein’s professional relationship is potentially covered by the statute and she may pursue her sexual harassment claim. The case has been remanded to the district court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Section 51.9 looks different now than it did in 1996. The statute was amended in 2018 and now </span><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=51.9.&lawCode=CIV" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">explicitly covers</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> sexual harassment by directors, producers, elected officials, and lobbyists, in addition to all of the professions previously specified.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">In this week’s decision, the Ninth Circuit recognized the importance of protecting people from sexual harassment in a wide variety of contexts. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and section 51.9 are important tools in the fight against injustice.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;"> </span></p><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Bryan Schwartz Law has written about </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sexual%20harassment" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">sexual harassment</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">, </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/gender%20discrimination" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">gender discrimination</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">, and </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Retaliation" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">retaliation</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> many times before. If you believe you were sexually harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against, please contact </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com/" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Bryan Schwartz Law</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">.</span></div></span>Cassidy Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11582612782359862890noreply@blogger.com0