Court Strikes Down Trump Administration Rule to Benefit Wage Violators

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 a January 2020 Department of Labor (“DOL”) rule that changed how to determine whether multiple entities are an individual’s employer under the “joint employer doctrine.” The case is New York v. Scalia.

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:

(i)                Hires or fires the employee;

(ii)              Supervises and controls the employee's work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;

(iii)           Determines the employee's rate and method of payment; or

(iv)            Maintains the employee's employment records.

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.

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 employee,” 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.

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 sufficient to establish joint employer liability, the Trump Administration rule made control necessary to establish an employer-employee relationship, which was a step too far.

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.

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.

If you have been denied minimum wage or overtime due, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Giving Thanks for Worker Protections—California Supreme Court and California Legislature Limit Arbitration Agreements in Employment

The California Supreme Court handed down a decision earlier this year that adds to the growing body of law surrounding mandatory arbitration agreements and delivering a victory for employees. The case is Oto, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111. This decision, plus the California Legislature’s recent legislation in AB-51, limit the extent to which employers can attempt to force their employees into binding arbitration.

Employers increasingly require their employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. By these agreements, employees waive their right to pursue employment actions against their employers by any means besides binding arbitration. The arbitration process often favors employers and effectively stymies employees’ efforts to vindicate their rights, protecting employers that wish to skirt the law. Employers’ reliance on mandatory arbitration has ballooned following the past decade of U.S. Supreme Court cases whittling away at employees’ right to vindicate their employment grievances in court or through an administrative proceeding. Given that mandatory arbitration agreements are so widespread, Bryan Schwartz Law has blogged about them many times, including here, here, here, here, and here.

One of the ways in which an employee may be able to escape from the requirements of a mandatory arbitration agreement is by arguing that the agreement itself is invalid, using the same legal arguments that could be made as to any contract. Oto v. Kho addressed one of these contract defenses in particular: the doctrine of unconscionability.

A contract might be unconscionable in one of two ways. First, the contract could be procedurally unconscionable. This means that the circumstances in which the contract was formed were so unfair that one of the parties could not have agreed to it based on their own free will.

Second, the contract could be substantively unconscionable. This means that the terms of the contract themselves are so unfair against one party that a court will refuse to enforce the contract.

Both were present in Oto v. Kho, the California Supreme Court ruled. The plaintiff in the case, Ken Kho, worked for One Toyota in Oakland, California, for three years before he was presented with several documents, including a mandatory arbitration agreement, by a low-level employee. Kho, whose first language is Chinese, was forced to sign the agreement immediately without a chance to review the agreement first. Later, Kho filed a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner against One Toyota for unpaid wages. One Toyota moved to compel arbitration on the eve of a hearing before the Labor Commissioner and refused to participate in the proceedings before the Labor Commissioner any further. The proceedings took place without One Toyota, and the Labor Commissioner entered an award for Kho.

The trial court vacated the award but did not compel arbitration. The court of appeal reversed, holding that, despite the apparent procedural unconscionability, the agreement was not substantively unconscionable.

The California Supreme Court disagreed. First, several aspects of the formation of the agreement smacked of procedural unconscionability. The agreement was presented to Kho at his workplace, along with other employment-related documents. No one explained the document or provided a copy in Kho’s native language, but he was required to sign it in order to keep his job. If Kho had insisted on taking the time to review the documents, his pay would have been reduced because he was paid on a piece-rate basis. The agreement was communicated to Kho by a low-level employee, indicating that One Toyota would not entertain any request for explanation. Furthermore, the low-level employee waited for Kho to review and execute the agreement, which created the impression that Kho was expected to do so immediately. One Toyota did not give Kho a copy of the executed agreement.

Moreover, the language of the agreement was rife with complex legalese and convoluted sentences. This dense paragraph was printed on tiny font; the court of appeal characterized it as “visually impenetrable.” The agreement’s deceptive nature was also apparent in how it characterized the responsibility for the costs of arbitration. The agreement set forth that the costs of arbitration would be split between the parties unless controlling case law provided otherwise, without noting that the controlling decision in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, created an exception to this default rule in employment cases. Taken together, these aspects of the agreement demonstrated that it “did not promote voluntary or informed agreement.”

Second, the agreement was substantively unconscionable. It provided no indication as to how one could bring an action in arbitration, as the agreement required. The process set forth in the mandatory arbitration agreement was as complex and intricate as the process for civil litigation, requiring arbitration to be initiated through the filing of a complaint and setting forth specific motions and discovery procedures. These procedures ran counter to the supposed benefits of arbitration—its purported speed and efficiency. The Court was also concerned that the arbitration agreement all but required claimants to hire legal counsel due to the complexity of its procedures, forcing employees to incur attorneys’ fees, whereas employees bringing wage claims have access to free legal assistance from the Labor Commissioner. Given that Kho’s mandatory arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, it was unenforceable.

The California Legislature also made a foray into mandatory arbitration provisions, amending the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to protect employees against forced arbitration. The amendment, AB-51, makes it an unlawful employment action to require any current or prospective employee to waive the right to pursue their FEHA claims in court or any other forum—in other words, employers cannot require employees to sign mandatory arbitration provisions as a condition of employment. The new legislation, set to take effect on January 1, 2020, also includes a provision prohibiting employers from retaliating against any employee because of their refusal to agree to mandatory arbitration.

If you have an employment dispute against your current or former employer, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

No Question of Timing – Dynamex Applies Retroactively, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Says

It makes a big difference whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Employees benefit from the protections of labor, employment, and other valuable statutory protections that do not cover independent contractors.

The breadth of “employee” status has been clarified under developing California law. Last year, the California Supreme Court decided the landmark case Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, about which Bryan Schwartz Law has written previously. This case established the “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, with a presumption that a worker is an employee, i.e., with the burden on putative employers to demonstrate that workers are independent contractors. Id. at 957. To meet this burden, the putative employer must show (a) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity, (b) the worker performs work outside the usual scope of the entity’s business, and (c) the worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Id. at 964. Failing to demonstrate any one of these elements is sufficient to show an employee-employer relationship. Id. at 964.

But does the Dynamex test apply retroactively to cases arising before it was decided? It does, according to the decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued on May 2, 2019. Workers for international janitorial giant Jan-Pro filed this case in 2008, alleging Jan-Pro implements a business model to misclassify workers as independent contractors and escape the company’s minimum wage and overtime responsibilities. Jan-Pro contracts with franchises of “master owners,” which in turn contracts with “unit franchisees.” Master owners themselves do not clean but instead engage in various managerial or administrative duties; unit franchisees clean. The plaintiffs, janitorial workers at unit franchisees, alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors.

The case had a tortured procedural history with over a decade of litigation, dispositive decisions, and appeals in federal and state courts in California, Georgia, and Massachusetts. In the Ninth Circuit, Jan-Pro argued that a judicial ruling in Georgia had already decided the issue, thereby conclusively resolving the Ninth Circuit case as well under the doctrine of res judicata. Regardless, Jan-Pro argued, the Dynamex decision should not apply retroactively to cases arising before it was decided in 2018.

The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments. The Court disposed of the res judicata arguments on grounds specific to the procedural history of the litigation. In brief, the Court held that the Massachusetts plaintiff was not in privity with the California plaintiffs, nor did he legally represent their interests—the California plaintiffs could not lose their day in court simply because of a similar case involving someone else on the east coast.

Next the Court addressed the important issue at stake for California workers: whether the Dynamex decision applied retroactively. The answer was a resounding “yes.” California’s judicial decisions traditionally apply retroactively, even when overruling past precedent. The Court adhered to this traditional rule, drawing further support from other California courts’ retroactive application of the Dynamex decision and the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of a petition to modify Dynamex to clarify that it was prospective only. Notably, despite its considerable impact on the lives of workers and employment law practice, the Dynamex decision did not create new law but instead hewed close to the fundamental purpose of existing California law. Because the lower court had dismissed the workers’ claims on summary judgment before Dynamex was decided, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a decision in light of Dynamex.

If you believe you are misclassified as an independent contractor and should enjoy the same rights as an employee, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

On-Call Scheduling Practice Ruled a Violation of Employees’ Rights

On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeals for California’s Second District ruled in favor of retail employees in an important decision about on-call work time in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., Case No. B280151. This decision is a major victory for on-call employees who have to set aside time for shifts they might not get to work. You can find the opinion here.

The employer, Tilly’s, a clothing and accessories retailer, required their employees to call two hours ahead of some shifts to find out if they were actually needed. These on-call shifts had concrete start and end times, and Tilly’s instructed its employees to plan as if they were definitely going to work the shifts. Some on-call shifts were scheduled immediately after an employee’s regular shift, in which case the employee would learn whether she was needed during her regular shift. Although Tilly’s could reprimand or even fire employees for failing to call in before their on-call shifts, they were not paid for any on-call shifts they did not work, nor were they paid for the two hours between calling in and the start of the on-call shift.

A scheduling scheme like Tilly’s puts workers, especially low-wage workers, in a tough spot. An employee scheduled for a potential shift has to plan her day as if she will work the shift, despite not having the guarantee of compensation. This stressful arrangement means setting up child care or care for aging relatives, pursuing additional employment, rearranging health care appointments and education schedules, or foregoing sleep, personal hygiene, or leisure, even though an employee may not know whether she will be called in to work until just two hours before her potential shift. In essence, Tilly’s required their employees to block out their time for work without the assurance of being paid.

The plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Tilly’s, challenging this scheduling practice. Tilly’s argued that the lawsuit did not state a cause of action—that everything the employee said Tilly’s did, in Tilly’s view, was legal. The Superior Court in Los Angeles agreed and threw out the case.

The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Tilly’s on-call scheduling scheme violated the law, specifically Wage Order 7 (Spanish) (Chinese). The Industrial Welfare Commission has issued 17 Wage Orders, including Wage Order 7, to regulate wages and work conditions for California workers. Wage Order 7 requires employers to pay employees for “[e]ach workday an employee is required to report for work, but is not put to work . . . .” Wage Order 7-2001 (8 Cal. Code Regs § 11070). Tilly’s argued that the phrase “report to work” requires an employee’s physical presence at the workplace when a shift starts.

Not so, said the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals drew attention to the unbalanced burdens that Tilly’s on-call scheduling scheme placed on its workers. The scheme benefited Tilly’s immensely: “This permits employers to keep their labors costs low when business is slow, while having workers at the ready when business picks up. It thus creates no incentive for employers to competently anticipate their labor needs and to schedule accordingly.” Ward, Case No. B280151, at *22. In contrast, the scheme “impose[d] tremendous costs on employees. . . . [O]n-call shifts significantly limit employees’ ability to earn income, pursue an education, care for dependent family members, and enjoy recreation time.” Id. at *22. These burdens affect employees not just during their on-call potential shifts, but for the two hours between the phone call and the shift itself. Id. at 22-23. The Court of Appeals held that Wage Order 7 was designed to prevent unfair scheduling practices such as this, and determined that the phrase “report for work” included the act of calling in. Id. at 23, 25. The wage orders covering workers in other industries use the phrase “report to work” in the same way as Wage Order 7.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals pronounced that “if the employer directs employees to present themselves for work by logging on to a computer remotely, or by appearing at a client’s job site, or by setting out on a trucking route, then the employee ‘reports for work’ by doing those things. And if . . . the employer directs employees to present themselves for work by telephoning the store two hours prior to the start of a shift, then the reporting time requirement is triggered by the telephonic contact.” Id. at 25-26. This conclusion is similar to a California Supreme Court decision that an employer cannot require its employees to keep their pagers and phones on to remain on-call during their rest breaks, which Bryan Schwartz has blogged about before. See Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257, 269 (2017).

If your employer has asked you to call in before scheduled shifts to determine if you are needed to work, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law today. Click here for more information about Bryan Schwartz Law.

Ninth Circuit Holds Catholic School Teacher fired after Cancer Diagnosis Can Sue School for Discrimination, Not Barred by First Amendment

On December 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Biel v. St. James School, A Corp., et al., Case No. 17-55180.

Plaintiff Kristen Biel, a fifth-grade teacher for Defendant, filed a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when St. James Catholic School fired her after she told the School that she had breast cancer and needed time off from work to undergo chemotherapy. The district court dismissed Biel’s claims at summary judgment—holding that her lawsuit under the ADA was barred by the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception.” After her case was dismissed, Plaintiff Biel appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In November 2013, Plaintiff Biel received a positive teaching evaluation from the School’s principal, noting that Biel was “very good” at promoting a safe and caring learning environment for her students. Less than six months after that evaluation, Biel was diagnosed with breast cancer. When she disclosed her diagnosis to the School’s administrators, she was told her employment contract would not be renewed because “it was not fair … to have two teachers for the children during the school year.”

Biel sued St. James in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that her termination violated the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. St. James moved for summary judgment, arguing that the First Amendment’s ministerial exception to generally applicable employment laws barred Biel’s ADA claims. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment for St. James.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the total circumstances of Biel’s employment did not qualify her as a minister for the purposes of the ministerial exception.

In Hosanna-Tabor, the only case where the U.S. Supreme Court has applied the ministerial exception, the Court focused on four major considerations to determine if the ministerial exception applied: (1) whether the employer held the employee out as a minister, (2) whether the employee’s title reflected ministerial substance and training, (3) whether the employee held herself out as a minister, and (4) whether the employee’s job duties included “important religious functions.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 192 (2012).

In Hosanna-Tabor, Cheryl Perich, a teacher for a Lutheran school, was fired after she was diagnosed with narcolepsy and brought ADA claims against the school. The Supreme Court found that the ministerial exception did apply because Perich was more than just a teacher in the Lutheran school. She had a special title of “Minister of Religion” conferred to her by the congregation and distinct from other teachers. Perich led her students in daily prayer, and she also led the school wide mass that occurred twice each school year. Perich claimed a federal tax benefit for employees earning compensation in the "exercise of the ministry" on her tax returns, and she also had to complete extensive religion training in the Lutheran doctrine that took her six years to complete in order to be a commissioned minister. In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that Perish was a minister covered by the ministerial exception.

The Ninth Circuit found that Biel, by contrast, had no sort of credentials, training or titles like Perich. Biel was Catholic, but St. James Catholic School did not require its employees to be Catholic to teach. Biel did not have any extensive training in religion or the Catholic pedagogy. Biel taught all fifth-grade subjects, including a thirty-minute religion class using a workbook on the Catholic faith prescribed by the school administrators. And while Biel joined her students in prayer twice daily, Biel did not lead her students in prayer, and her only job duties at the School’s monthly mass were to keep her class orderly and quiet.

After a holistic examination of her training and duties demonstrated that Biel had a limited role in her student’s spiritual lives, the Ninth Circuit held the ministerial exception did not apply, reversing and remanding her case back to the district court. Biel’s lawyer, Andrew Pletcher, said Biel is still struggling with cancer but is delighted by the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

Epic Fail: U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Employers May Require Employees to Waive Right to Bring a Class Action as a Condition of Employment

On Monday, the Roberts Court took another significant step in its ongoing project to hobble class actions and impose barriers to employees seeking redress against their employers by holding that class action waivers within arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The employees, seeking to recover unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and other employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), had argued that the NLRA’s Section 7, which guarantees employees’ “right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively . . . , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” prohibits employers from requiring that employees agree to individual, binding arbitration as a condition of continued employment.

The case, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, comes on the heels of series of Roberts Court cases expanding the ability of companies to impose individual arbitration on their employees and customers, thus preventing employees and consumers from filing lawsuits in open court or filing class actions anywhere. Bryan Schwartz Law has written extensively about the Court’s decisions expanding the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) at the expense of the rights of employees and consumers: here, here, here, here, here, and here. In 2001, the Rehnquist Court ruled in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams that the FAA’s express exclusion of “the contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” meant to remove only the employment disputes of transportation workers from binding arbitration, notwithstanding the broad “any other class of workers” language in the Act. Then, in 2011, the Roberts Court approved of class action waivers in consumer arbitration contracts in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

The Court’s opinion in Epic Systems, while hardly a surprise given this Court’s expressed disregard for the rights of workers and consumers in its recent arbitration jurisprudence, is notable for the sheer level of its intellectual dishonesty. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the five-Justice majority, feigns confusion as to why the National Labor Relations Board did not address the apparent conflict between the NLRA (enacted 1935) and the FAA (enacted 1925) until 2012, when the obvious answer is that no one thought that the FAA had anything to do with employment disputes in the late 1930s when Congress passed both the NLRA and the FLSA, which permits employees to bring “collective actions” to recover unpaid wages.

Gorsuch counsels judicial restraint in admonishing the employees for asserting a conflict between the FAA and NLRA – “This Court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives” – but fails to mention that the current regime making compulsory, pre-dispute arbitration a ubiquitous requirement for employees and consumers is a recent, judicial invention. Given the low value of most individual employment and consumer claims, the right-wing innovation is tantamount to a get-out-of-jail-free card (or out-of-liability-free card, at least) for companies engaging in wage theft and other insidious business practices, undermining fair competition with companies that play by the rules.

Completely absent from Court’s opinion is any discussion or concern as to how forced individual arbitration undermines the substantive rights enshrined in laws like the FLSA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting employment discrimination). The success of these Acts has depended greatly on the ability to bring group actions challenging policies and practices that injure large numbers of workers. For instance, the landmark 1971 discrimination case Griggs v. Duke Power Co. involved a class of African-American employees who successfully challenged high school diploma and IQ-testing requirements that were unrelated to their jobs, but had the effect of keeping African-Americans out of the most desirable positions. In Gorsuch’s world, these sorts of fundamental statutory protections must give way to the Roberts Court’s arbitration regime, under which its expansive reading of the FAA trumps all.

Justice Ginsburg penned a fiery and forceful dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, in which she blasts the majority opinion for trampling on the ability of employees to exercise their statutory rights. Ginsburg traces the history of the Court’s labor jurisprudence, noting that New Deal legislation like the NLRA and the FLSA arose from an understanding that individual employees lacked the bargaining power to demand fair working conditions, and that only through acting collectively could employees “match their employers’ clout in setting the terms and conditions of employment.” In that sense, the majority’s opinion, premised on the fanciful notion that most employees have any ability to negotiate when their employers demand they sign an arbitration agreement, reflects a return to the pre-New Deal Lochner era, when the Court routinely struck down worker protections as violating the supposed freedom to contract.

Ginsburg further notes that the result of Epic Systems “will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.” Low-wage employees, especially, may be reluctant to take on their employers alone for fear of retaliation, since the costs and risks of proceeding individually often dwarf the potential recoveries. Of course, this is not an accidental outgrowth of the Roberts Court’s arbitration jurisprudence, but its central design: to insulate companies from liability for harm to their employees and customers.

After Epic Systems, employees, consumers, and those who advocate on their behalf have an increasingly limited toolbox to confront corporate abuse on a class-wide basis, so long as employers can demand individual arbitration. At this point, the only comprehensive solution is likely a legislative one, highlighting the importance of who Americans elect to the next Congress. When most Americans know victims of corporate overreaching – a day we fear is coming soon – the tide will turn, and the Roberts Court will be seen in its true light, on the wrong side of history.