New Law Requires Union Access to Employee Orientation Sessions

June 2017
Number 34

Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation that requires public agency employers to give union representatives access to new employees during orientation sessions. The bill, which went into effect immediately after Brown signed it on June 27, is part of Assembly Bill (AB) 119, a budget trailer bill.

The bill is a product of the efforts by unions representing public employees to mitigate the impact of an anticipated United States Supreme Court decision that could make union dues in public agencies voluntary. Under current law, public agency employees who opt out of participating in their union may be required to pay fees to cover union services including collective bargaining.

AB 119 requires public agency employers to grant union representatives access to new employee orientations, which are defined as onboarding processes conducted in person, online or by other means in which new employees are advised of their employment status, rights, benefits, duties and responsibilities. The structure, time and manner of access is subject to negotiations. This new law also requires that negotiations must be conducted during the period between the effective date of the bill and the expiration of a union’s existing contract.

Public agency employers must give their unions at least 10 days’ notice of a new employee orientation session, unless the employer and the bargaining unit reach an alternate agreement or in specific cases where an urgent, unforeseeable need prevents it. It also requires public agency employers to provide the names, job and contact information for new employees to unions within 30 days of hire or by the first pay period of the month following a hire, even if the employee previously worked for the district. Public agencies must provide the same information about all bargaining unit members every 120 days, though public agency employers and unions may negotiate the provision of more detailed lists or different time intervals for providing the information regarding new employees or bargaining unit members.

If a public agency and a union are unable to reach an agreement on the structure, time and manner of access, the dispute is subject to compulsory interest arbitration which means that that arbitrator has the authority to dedicate the terms of the agreement. Alleged violations of the new law may be addressed by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).

The budget trailer bill is less prescriptive than last year’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2835, which would have required public agency employers to hold in-person new employee orientations every four months during work hours, and also to allow unions to conduct 30-minute presentations during the first half of these orientations. That bill would also have required public agency employers to provide contact and job description information about bargaining unit members to unions every 90 days.

AB 119 gives public agency employers the opportunity to work with their labor partners to negotiate terms for access to employee orientations that are workable for the employer and meaningful to the union. There are a variety of options for implementing the requirements of this legislation, including airing a videotaped presentation from the union during employee orientations or allowing for an in-person presentation by a union representative. Public agency employers are encouraged to review existing collective bargaining agreements to determine if existing language conflicts with AB 119 and negotiate any necessary change, or develop, through negotiations, language to implement the terms of AB 119.

Lozano Smith has been tracking this legislation and court cases on union dues closely and is ready to assist public agencies with the implementation of these new mandates. A Frequently Asked Questions document that offers more details on the bill is available below. For more information on these new mandates, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q: What does this bill require public agencies to do?
A: Assembly Bill (AB) 119 requires public agencies to provide unions with access to new employee orientation sessions. It also requires public agencies to provide unions with names and contact information of new employees in bargaining unit positions.
Q: What was the reason for this bill?
A: Unions representing public employees sought this legislation because there is at least one case pending before the United States Supreme Court that could result in the Court ruling that union dues are voluntary, which could greatly reduce revenues for public employee unions. Currently, public employees who opt out of union membership are often required to pay service fees to cover the cost of negotiations and other union-provided services.
Q: When does the bill go into effect?
A: The bill went into effect immediately after the Governor signed it on June 26, 2017.
Q: Does the bill require public agencies to conduct face-to-face orientations?
A: No. Orientations may be conducted in person, online or by other means.
Q: Does the bill spell out when and how access must be provided?
A: No. The structure, time and manner of access are all subject to negotiations. However, the bill does, in the absence of an alternate agreement, require public agency employers to give unions at least 10 days’ notice before holding an employee orientation, except in specific instances where there is “an urgent need critical to the employer’s operations that was not reasonably foreseeable.”
Q: When should negotiations over access take place?
A: Negotiations must take place between the effective date of the bill and the expiration of a union’s contract.
Q: What happens if we can’t reach an agreement with the union on the structure, time and manner of access?
A: If any dispute that occurs during negotiations over access is not resolved within 45 days after the first meeting of the parties or 60 days after the initial request to negotiate, either side may make a demand for compulsory “interest arbitration.”
Q: What is “interest arbitration?”
A: “Interest arbitration” is one in which the arbitrator has the authority to determine the terms that will resolve the dispute, i.e. dictate the terms of the resolution to the parties.
Q: Couldn’t unions demand to bargain their role in employee orientations prior to AB 119?
A: Yes, unions could bargain their role in employee orientations prior to AB 119 taking the position that such participation was necessary in order to fulfill their representational rights under the EERA and because it impacted terms and conditions of employment.
Q: My agency hires new employees continuously, which will make it difficult to provide the notice and access the bill requires. How can I comply?
A: The bill permits public agencies and unions to reach an agreement that differs from the requirements of the new law. For example, public agencies could seek to negotiate an arrangement with their labor unions to provide access via a video aired at all in-person orientations or provided along with other orientation materials if orientations are conducted online.
Q: What information does the bill require public agencies to provide to unions?
A: Public agencies must provide the union a new employee’s name; job title; department; work location; work, home and personal cell phone numbers; personal email addresses on file with the agency; and home address, within 30 days of hire or by the first pay period of the month following the hire, even if the employee previously worked for the district. The bill also requires public agencies to provide the same information about all bargaining unit members every 120 days, though public agency employers can negotiate agreements with their unions to provide more detailed lists of information or different intervals for providing information about new employees and bargaining unit members. Public agency administrators may wish to work with their human resources departments to find out whether the generation of these lists can be automated to save time and ensure consistent compliance.
Q: What if an employee doesn’t want to stay to hear from the union?
A: The law only requires public agency employers to provide unions with access to new employees and to information on new employees and bargaining unit members. It does not require that an employee stay to hear from the union. This would be the employee’s choice.
Q: What happens if the union believes the public agency is violating the law?
A: Disputes may be submitted to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).

Written by:

Louis T. Lozano

Partner

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Advertisements

DFEH Releases Guidelines on Anti-Harassment Policies, Training and Notice Regulations

June 2017
Number 33

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) recently released a Workplace Harassment Guide that includes recommended practices to enable employers to comply with California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regulations aimed at preventing, investigating and addressing workplace harassment. DFEH also issued guidance and a poster related to identifying and addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Effective April 1, 2016, California employers became subject to new regulations under FEHA which prohibit workplace discrimination and harassment. The new anti-harassment regulations require employers to adopt and distribute written policies on unlawful harassment, including how complaints of prohibited conduct should be filed. The new regulations also require employers to provide trainings on prohibited harassment, discrimination, and abusive conduct. (For more details regarding these FEHA regulations, see 2016 Client News Brief No. 30.)

DFEH’s Workplace Harassment Guide provides valuable guidance on what employers can do to ensure an effective anti-harassment program and provides recommended practices for conducting workplace investigations. The guide’s recommendations include:

  • If an employer receives a report of harassment, including an anonymous complaint, the employer should give the complaint “top priority” and determine if the complaint may be resolved informally or if a formal investigation is necessary.
  • Investigations should be fair and should include:
    • A thorough interview with the complainant, preferably in person;
    • An opportunity for the accused to respond and tell his/her side of the story;
    • Interviews of relevant witnesses and a review of relevant documents; and
    • A conclusion based on the information collected, reviewed and analyzed.
  • Employers can only promise limited confidentiality of the complaint, in part because the identity of the complainant can often be determined based on the allegations. Also, it is rarely appropriate for an employer to fail to investigate a complaint because an employee asks their employer to keep the complaint confidential.
  • Whether employers may direct employees to not discuss a pending investigation is a complicated issue. Employers should consult with legal counsel prior to giving such a directive. (For the Public Employment Relations Board’s determination on “no contact” admonitions, see 2015 Client News Brief No. 3.)
  • Investigations should be started and conducted promptly. Further, investigations should be fair, thorough, and conducted by a neutral investigator. Employers should also consider whether the investigator will be publicly perceived as unbiased.
  • An investigator can reach a reasonable conclusion in a “he said/she said” situation based on an assessment of witness credibility.
  • Investigators should document witness interviews, steps taken in the investigation and findings made.
  • Investigators should make findings of fact (not legal conclusions) based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. “Preponderance of the evidence” means that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred.
  • Misconduct should be addressed through remedial measures. Remedial measures recommended by DFEH include training, verbal counseling and discipline.
  • Retaliation can occur at any time, and complainants and witnesses must be protected from retaliation.

In addition to DFEH’s guidance, school and community college districts should be mindful of their own policies and procedures for conducting investigations, which may include specific timelines and investigation procedures, as well as applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Lozano Smith has a team of attorneys experienced in conducting investigations of complaints, including employee and student complaints alleging discrimination and harassment. For more information, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Stephanie M. White

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Appellate Court Orders Publication of Lease-Leaseback Decision, Making it Binding Precedent

June 2017
Number 32

On May 31, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal ordered publication of its decision in California Taxpayers Action Network v. Taber Construction, Inc. et al.(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 115 (Taber), which upholds the validity of a lease-leaseback arrangement. This reversed the court’s initial decision not to publish the case. Publication of the Taber decision means that it serves as citable precedent upon which school districts and others may now rely.

In Taber, the Court of Appeal reviewed the validity of a lease-leaseback arrangement that was challenged on the grounds that it did not comply with Education Code section 17406, the lease-leaseback statute covering school districts. Agreeing withMcGee v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 235 (McGee), which was recently decided by the Second District Court of Appeal, the Taber court declined to follow the lease-leaseback holding ofDavis v. Fresno Unified School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (Davis) and to read Davis’ “genuine lease” and “financing” requirements into the lease-leaseback statute. On the other hand, the Taber court did agree with both Davis andMcGee that allegations that a lease-leaseback contractor acted as an officer or employee of the school district when performing pre-construction services was sufficient to allow a conflict of interest cause of action under Government Code section 1090 to proceed to trial. (For further discussion of the Taber decision, see 2017 Client News Brief No. 23.)

While the Taber decision represents the second appellate court ruling that specifically repudiates the holding of Davis, it does not overrule that case, as one Court of Appeal cannot overturn the ruling of another. In the event a lease-leaseback challenge is brought in state court, a trial court has the option of applying McGee,Taber or Davis. A trial court, however, will ordinarily follow an appellate opinion from its own district even though it is not bound to do so, meaning that trial courts in the First and Second Appellate Districts (generally, the greater San Francisco and Los Angeles areas) may be more inclined to follow Taber and McGee, respectively, while trial courts in the Fifth Appellate District (generally, the Central Valley) may be more inclined to follow Davis. Until and unless the California Supreme Court weighs in, uncertainty may remain.

If you have any questions about the legality of lease-leaseback and which appellate court decision may apply to your project, or about other project delivery methods, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or
an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Travis E. Cochran

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Public Entities Must Proceed with Caution When Preparing an Addendum to a Negative Declaration

June 2017
Number 31

A California appellate court has held that a public entity violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by preparing an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration. In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, the court found that proposed changes to the District’s original facilities project might have a significant effect on the environment, requiring further analysis, rather than use of an addendum.

The California Environmental Quality Act

Under CEQA, a public agency generally conducts an initial study to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment unless an exemption applies. If the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA requires the agency to prepare a negative declaration. Alternatively, if the project has potentially significant environmental effects but these effects will be reduced to insignificance by mitigation measures, CEQA requires the agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration. Projects where the environmental effect cannot be reduced to insignificance by mitigation measures require an environmental impact report (EIR).

In the event an agency modifies a project after a negative or mitigated negative declaration has been adopted, CEQA outlines subsequent review provisions that apply so long as the original declaration is relevant. These provisions require the agency to prepare a subsequent negative or mitigated declaration or subsequent EIR depending on certain circumstances. The guidelines also allow the agency to prepare an “addendum,” rather than a subsequent negative or mitigated negative declaration, if there are only “minor technical changes or additions.” Such addenda have more limited analysis and do not reopen public comment opportunities. Alternatively, if the modifications are such that the original negative or mitigated declaration is no longer relevant, the public entity must start over by conducting a new initial study.

Background

The San Mateo County Community College District (District) adopted a facilities master plan proposing nearly $1 billion in new construction and facilities renovations that involved demolition of certain buildings and renovation of others. In order to comply with CEQA, the District published an initial study and mitigated negative declaration analyzing the physical environmental effects of implementing the plan’s proposed improvements in 2006. However, after the District failed to obtain adequate funding for its original plan, it added one building to its demolition list and removed two others. As a result of these changes, the District prepared an addendum to the 2006 mitigated negative declaration.

The proposed changes to the plan prompted complaints by a number of students and faculty which ultimately led to a lawsuit challenging the addendum. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community
College Dist.
(Sept. 26, 2013, No. A135892) [nonpub. opn.].) The community members expressed concern that the proposed changes would eliminate a portion of an existing garden making up one-third of one percent of the total landscaped and open space on campus. The court concluded that the proposed changes constituted a “new” project, meaning that new CEQA review was required. However, the California Supreme Court disagreed and remanded the case with
additional instructions. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)

On remand, the appellate court found that substantial evidence supporting the District’s original mitigated negative declaration was still relevant and agreed with the District’s determination that CEQA’s somewhat more limited subsequent review provisions were applicable. However, the court concluded that the District did not properly comply with its obligations under those provisions. The court considered testimony from community members regarding the project’s aesthetic value to be substantial evidence that the project might have a significant environmental effect, rendering the proposed changes more than “minor technical changes or additions,” and therefore requiring more than the adoption of an addendum.

Takeaway

The lesson from this case is that, when modifying a project after a negative or mitigated negative declaration has been adopted, public entities should be very cautious when deciding whether to prepare an addendum or adopt a subsequent or supplemental negative declaration or EIR. Although courts give public entities deference when deciding whether to proceed under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions so long as there is evidence that the original negative or mitigated declaration remains relevant, the decision to prepare an addendum (rather than a subsequent or supplemental negative declaration or EIR) is reviewed with much more scrutiny. As we learn from San Mateo Gardens, even complaints about aesthetics from community members could be enough evidence for a court to conclude that modifications to a project may have a significant environmental effect, requiring further review. No matter what subsequent review process is selected, it is important to ensure that the rationale is well-documented in the administrative record in order to best defend the public entity’s decision.

For more information about the California Environmental Quality Act, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Anne L. Collins

Partner

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Bond Insurers on Credit Watch

June 2017
Number 30

On June 6, 2017, S&P Global Ratings (S&P) placed two of the three active municipal bond insurers, Build America Mutual Assurance Company (BAM) and National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. (NPFGC), on credit watch with negative implications.

S&P intends to review the insurers and may adjust their assigned rating based on their competitive strengths or weaknesses relative to their peers. S&P stated that its review may lead to a downgrade of BAM or NPFGC. S&P is of the view that the competitive position of BAM and NPFGC may be sufficiently weaker within the industry than Assured Guaranty Ltd. and its operating subsidiaries, making greater rating differentiation appropriate among the municipal bond insurers. S&P expects to complete its review within the next three months, per its statements given in a research update report issued on June 6, 2017.

What this means for you : Issuers of municipal bonds should review their outstanding bonds to determine if any are insured by BAM or NPFGC. If S&P moves forward with a rating downgrade of BAM or NPFGC, the downgrade is treated as a “material event” under SEC Rule 15c2-12 and, accordingly, must be reported as part of an issuer’s continuing disclosure obligations for any bonds insured by the downgraded insurer.

If your agency has outstanding bonds insured by either BAM or NPFGC and you have any questions regarding continuing disclosure compliance, please contact the authors of this Client News brief or an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. Lozano Smith serves as bond and disclosure counsel to school districts, community colleges, and other public agencies throughout California and would be happy to provide guidance regarding these developments. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Daniel Maruccia

Partner

Sean B. Mick

Associate

Jennifer Grant

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Federal Court Upholds Texas School Board’s Practice of Student Invocations at School Board Meetings

June 2017
Number 29

A federal appeals court recently upheld a Texas school district’s practice of permitting students to deliver a religious invocation at the beginning of governing board meetings. ( American Humanist Association et al v. Birdville Independent School District et al (5th Cir. 2017, Nos. 15-11067, 16-11220) ___ F.3d ___ (Birdville). While noteworthy, the opinion is not binding on public agencies in California, where a separate ruling on religious invocations at governing board meetings issued by a California-based district court is now being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School Dist.Bd. of Ed (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016, No. 5:14-cv-02336-JGB-DTB) (Chino Valley ), the court ruled that a California school district board violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution when it adopted a policy allowing a local clergy member or board member to deliver an invocation before each board meeting. The court also held that board
members citing Bible passages during board meetings in the presence of student board members constituted unlawful school prayer. ( See 2016 Client News Brief No. 20.)

In Birdville, two students opened each board meeting. One student led the Pledge of Allegiance and Texas pledge, while the other delivered “some sort of statement,” which often included an invocation. From 1997 through February 2015, the student comments were called “invocations,” but were dubbed “student expressions” after the District received a complaint from a former student and member of the American Humanist Association (AHA) that the invocation violated the Establishment Clause. The group later sued, claiming that the student invocation amounted to unconstitutional school prayer.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the District, holding that a legislative prayer exception developed by the United States Supreme Court in 1983 applied to the invocation. (See Marsh v. Chambers (1983) 463 U.S. 783.) The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that board members, and not the audience at board meetings, were the principal audience for the invocations and that students’ presence at the meetings did not make this a school prayer case because the invocation was delivered during the ceremonial portion of the meeting and was not directed at them. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the District’s invocation policy lacked a “unique history,” noting that at least eight states have some history of opening prayers at school board meetings.

In Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld a chaplain’s invocation because “[t]he opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.” More recently, the Supreme Court extended the legislative prayer exception to city council meetings, so long as the principal audience is the “lawmakers themselves” as opposed to members of the public in attendance and the prayer does not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities.” (See Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) 134 S. Ct. 1811.)

The court also acknowledged two pre-Galloway cases where school district board meeting invocations were determined to be unconstitutional school prayer. In those cases, the courts held that invocations at school board meetings were not covered by the legislative prayer exception because school board meetings are inextricably linked with the public school system. However, in those cases, the school boards had at least one student member or their meetings were attended by student representatives in their formal role as student government representatives, neither of which was the case in Birdville.

It is not yet clear whether this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Once issued, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Chino Valley will likely set the framework for the legality of invocations at California school board meetings. That ruling, which Lozano Smith is monitoring closely, is anticipated within the next year.

For more information on the Birdville ruling or invocations at school board meetings in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Kyle A. Raney

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

High Court Declines to Review Ruling on Cash in Lieu Payments

June 2017
Number 28

The United States Supreme Court has denied review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that cash payments made to employees in lieu of benefits must be included as pay when calculating their overtime pay rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On May 15, 2017, the Court denied the City of San Gabriel’s petition for review of Flores v. City of San Gabriel (2016) 824 F.3d 890 (Flores), allowing the decision to remain legal precedent.

Flores provides narrow interpretations of exemptions to the FLSA when calculating an employee’s “regular rate of pay” and a broad definition of what constitutes an employer’s “willful” violation of the FLSA. This ruling also highlights the importance of employers carefully reviewing all payments made to employees to determine if the payments must be included in calculations of the employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime.

In Flores, a group of police officers sued the City of San Gabriel (the City) for overtime pay they said they were owed under the FLSA. The City had a flexible benefit plan which allowed employees to forego medical benefits if they had alternative coverage. Employees who made this election received the unused portion of their benefit allotment as a cash payment added to their regular paycheck. The police officers argued that the City should have included these payments when calculating their overtime pay rate. The officers also argued that the City’s violation of the FLSA was “willful” and thus triggered an extension of the two-year limit on back pay that could be recovered.

Under the FLSA, an employer must pay its employees overtime compensation of one and one-half times the “regular rate of pay” for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a seven-day work week. An employee’s “regular rate of pay” must include all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee, unless the payment is excluded as set forth in the FLSA. The FLSA allows employees to sue for unpaid wages owed to them within a two-year statute of limitations for claims unless an employer’s violation of the law was “willful,” in which case the statute of limitations is extended to three years.

The Ninth Circuit held that the City’s cash-in-lieu of benefits payment may not be excluded as exemptions to the FLSA and therefore must be included in the calculations of the plaintiffs’ “regular rate of pay,” rejecting the City’s argument that the cash-in-lieu benefits were exempt because the payments were not tied to hours worked or amount of services provided by the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the City’s interpretation contradicted a regulation implementing the FLSA which provides that a payment may not be excluded from regular rate of pay if it is generally understood as compensation for work, even though the payment is not directly tied to specific hours worked by an employee. The court further determined that the FLSA exemption did not apply because the unused benefits were paid directly to the employees and not a “trustee or third person.”

The court also deemed the City’s violation of the FLSA “willful,” saying that the City did not put forth any evidence of any actions it took to determine whether its treatment of cash-in-lieu of benefits payments complied with the FLSA, despite full awareness of its obligation to do so. (For more details on the decision, see 2016 Client News Brief No. 47.)

The court’s narrow interpretation of the FLSA exceptions for calculating “regular rate of pay” could have a significant impact on the way agencies pay employees and provide benefits. This interpretation of the FLSA means that employers must be cautious when offering cash-in-lieu of benefits payment programs to employees because of the consequences such offers may have on overtime payment calculations.

The broad interpretation of what constitutes an employer’s “willful” violation of the FLSA requires employers to be proactive when even the slightest possibility of violating the FLSA arises. The ruling emphasizes the importance of conducting and documenting regular review of payments made to employees and a determination of whether they must be included in the employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime. Determining whether a specific payment fits into one of these statutory exclusions and is therefore properly excluded from the regular rate of pay involves a highly fact-specific analysis. To that end, case law, regulations and the Department of Labor provide extensive guidance regarding how specific forms of common arrangements are treated under these exclusions, and legal counsel should be consulted as needed during an analysis of whether a particular payment should be included in the regular rate of pay.

For more information on the Flores case or FLSA claims in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Jayme A. Duque

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.