California

Subscribe to California

California Assembly Bill 1867 (signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2020) and Senate Bill 1383 (signed on September 17, 2020) significantly expand the rights of California employees to both paid and unpaid leave.  In addition, and especially as they relate to Senate Bill 1383, these laws will require California employers to promptly revise their policies and procedures when it comes to reviewing employee requests for unpaid leave.

Assembly Bill 1867

To recap, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) provides that employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of paid sick leave for reasons related to COVID-19.  FFCRA, however, applies only to employers with fewer than 500 employees.  Like many ordinances adopted after the passage of FFCRA, AB 1867 attempts to fill the gap left by FFCRA by applying to employers with 500 or more employees.

AB 1867 fills this gap in two ways.  First, it creates new California Labor Code section 248, which mirrors Governor Gavin Newsom’s prior Executive Order N-51-20.  Section 248 requires entities with 500 or more employees to provide their “food sector workers” with up to 80 hours of “COVID-19 food sector supplemental paid sick leave.”  Second, it also creates new Labor Code section 248.1.  This section applies more broadly than section 248 as it requires that employers with 500 or more employees provide all employees with up to 80 hours of “COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.”

A recent California Court of Appeal decision upheld the state’s complex rules for compensating piece-rate employees.  In Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor & Workforce Dev. Agency, 2019 Cal.App. LEXIS 10 (Cal.Ct.App. Jan. 4, 2019), the Court held that the Labor Code’s requirement that piece-rate employees be separately compensated for “nonproductive time” was not unconstitutionally vague.  With California’s “productive vs. non-productive time” rubric firmly in place, employers must take great care to track and compensate piece-rate employees’ time, or face stiff penalties.

What Does “Piece-Rate” Mean, And Why Might An Employer Chose It?

Piece-rate compensation plans are very popular in some industries.  They can incentivize employee productivity, while giving an employer greater control over labor costs. Under a piece-rate compensation system, the worker is paid a fixed amount of money for each unit produced or action performed, regardless of the number of hours worked. Industries that pay employees on a piece-rate basis include:

In 2017, the California Legislature passed a bill that resulted in Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 7169, which ultimately would require Home Improvement Contractors, which include contractors that install solar systems on residences, to issue specific disclosures to any residential consumers who may want to purchase, finance or lease, and install a solar system on their property. Recently in August, the California Public Utilities Commission “endorse[d] the solar energy systems disclosure document as being compliant with [BPC section 7169]….” The Disclosure terms include:

  • The total cost for the solar system, including financing and energy/power costs (if applicable);
  • The statutory License Board Disclosure statement for contractors and / or the home improvement salesperson who sold the system information regarding with whom to file if there are complaints; and
  • The statutory Three-Day Right to Cancel Disclosure if the contract is not negotiated at the contractor’s place of business.

Continuing its aggressive enforcement of California wage and hour laws, the Labor Commission issued wage theft citations of $1.9 million to Fullerton Pacific Interiors, Inc. for failing to pay minimum wage and overtime and failing to provide rest periods to 472 workers on 26 construction projects throughout Southern California.

Fullerton Pacific Interiors provided drywall work…

Recently, in RSB Vineyards LLC v. Orsi, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal confirmed the long-standing rule in California: sellers must disclose all known material matters.  While this affirmed rule was not surprising, the court was very helpful  in providing the first detailed framework for what it means for a seller to have…

A Sacramento bankruptcy judge issued a hard hitting judgment against Bank of America for the way it handled a single residential foreclosure in Lincoln, California.  Referring to the famous novelist whose works evoke oppressive and nightmarish characteristics, Judge Klein wrote: “Franz Kafka lives… [and] he works at Bank of America.”  This ruling has been widely discussed for the hefty award recovered by the plaintiff.  In addition to the harsh ruling, Judge Klein memorialized a rule that was not previously addressed in case law – the affirmative duty of an attorney to search bankruptcy filings to confirm whether a violation of a stay order was likely.  While this rule could arguably be characterized as dicta, because there were no claims against the attorneys in the suit, all attorneys should take note of this rule or risk serious consequences.  The relevant facts are summarized below.

In 2008, the plaintiffs entered into a loan with the expectation that they could refinance or modify the loan immediately after closing. However, after closing, Bank of America said that it would not consider a loan modification request unless and until the homeowners ceased making payment.  Accordingly, in 2009, the homeowners defaulted on their loan payments, which triggered a series of troublesome events.  During the course of the ensuing years, Bank of America strung along the homeowners with multiple “lost” loan modification requests, while at the same time pursuing foreclosure.

It is well known that under California law a real estate broker may act as a “dual agent” for both the seller and the buyer in a property transaction, provided both parties consent to the arrangement after full disclosure. In such representation, a dual agent owes fiduciary duties to both buyer and seller.  Pursuant to a recent case, Horiike v. Coldwell Banker, these fiduciary obligations have now been expanded to also apply to “associate licensees” acting on behalf of a brokerage firm (or the salespeople of the given brokerage firm, as they are more commonly known).  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that when an agent representing a seller is working for the same firm as the agent representing the buyer, they are considered an “associate licensee” and must properly investigate and disclose all important information related to the property subject to the transaction.

In Horiike, the seller and buyer of a luxury Malibu mansion were represented by separate real estate agents.  However, both of these agents were acting under the license of a single brokerage firm, Coldwell Banker.  The seller’s agent had reason to know that residence’s square footage was significantly different than what was represented in the sales material.  The buyer purchased the property and began making renovations.  Upon reviewing a building permit previously obtained by the prior owner, the buyer discovered that the property had thousands of square feet less living space than what was disclosed in the marketing materials.  Coldwell Banker claimed that because the seller’s agent exclusively represented the seller, there was no fiduciary duty to disclose information relating to the square footage to the buyer.  The California Supreme Court thought otherwise.

Last week, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a property owner was entitled to a jury trial in a dispute with a lender despite the fact that the loan agreement contained a jury waiver provision and a New York choice-of-law provision.

The case involved the San Francisco apartment complex known as the Rincon Towers. In 2007, the plaintiffs borrowed $110 million on a two-year loan to finance the acquisition.  In 2009, the plaintiffs failed to repay the loan. The plaintiffs claimed that under the terms of the loan agreement they were entitled to a one-year extension of the maturity date.  The lender disagreed and instead completed a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.

In the midst of a serious California drought, water concerns have brought with it a rise in well drilling.  Today, the California Contractors State License Board sent out a timely reminder that C-57 well drilling licensees in the Central Valley must register portable internal combustion engines of 50 horsepower or greater used to power drilling…