With a trial yesterday, most of my week was spent preparing exhibits, witness testimony, trial briefs, etc. Unfortunately, that left me with little time to read through articles and cases. Nevertheless, I did come across two topics worth highlighting this week.
As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.
Amidst Legislative Efforts to Curb Minimum Wage Hike, Arkansas Governor Voices Opposition
Earlier this week, a House panel in the Arkansas Legislature endorsed legislation which would curb minimum wage hikes for certain workers in the state, previously approved by voters last November. Under the legislation currently pending in the House, small businesses, some nonprofits, and teenagers would be exempted from the minimum wage hike. (Readers might recall that voters had previously approved a minimum wage hike from $8.50/hour up to $11/hour by 2021.). However, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson stated his opposition to the legislation as did the state GOP. Even with this pronounced opposition, the sponsor of the legislation indicated the intent to still bring the matter to a vote. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. With notable Republicans in the state starting to make their opposition known, this proposal might not have the legs to make it through the Legislature.
California Employers: Your Employees Are Entitled to Reporting Time Pay If Required to Call In to Confirm Shift
At the start of February, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Divison Three issued a decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. in which the Court reversed the lower court’s order and held that an employee that is ‘on call’ and required to call in two hours before their shift starts to confirm if they are actually needed for work are entitled to pay for this ‘on call’ period. Under Wage Order 7, employers in California are required to pay employees “reporting time pay” for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.” The employee that filed suit in this case argued that having to contact the employer two hours before the shift was to start triggered the reporting for work requirement of Wage Order 7. The Court of Appeal agreed, unswayed by the employer’s contention that reporting for work required the employee to physically appear at the worksite at the start of a scheduled shift to trigger the reporting for work requirement. Consequently, it was held that on call scheduling placed a burden on these employees to not make social plans, go to school, or schedule other events, such that the employer not being required to pay these employees reporting time pay would be abuse of Wage Order 7. Although the Court’s opinion is rather lengthy here, it is a well written opinion that is worth reading.
Comments
Post a Comment