An employment contract is an agreement that stipulates the duties and obligations of the employer and the employee. An employment agreement has specific clauses that guide the relationship between both parties to the agreement.
One of the most important clauses in an employment agreement is remuneration. The remuneration clause itemizes how much the prospective employee will get paid. This clause itemizes how much the employee will get paid and determines whether wages will be separated from bonuses, overtime, and commissions. Furthermore, an employment contract must contain a termination clause. The termination clause highlights the circumstances that might result in the employer losing their job. The termination clause explains the terms of the contract and whether it is a one-off contract or will be renewed. The termination might occur by operation of time, breach, and agreement. Confidentiality, a non-disclosure agreement or clause, is an employment clause that seeks to protect the company’s data from being leaked. Most businesses adopt confidential clauses to protect their trade secrets. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) offers multiple protections for American employees against excessive work demands by employers. Beyond requiring employers to pay overtime rates, the FLSA protects employees from potential off-the-clock violations.
The term “off-the-clock” refers to any uncompensated time an employee spends working above and beyond their paid hours. Its definition extends to all activities that fall under the worker's job description and provide value for the employer. Two of the most widespread off-the-clock violations are engaging in unpaid preparatory work before a shift or unpaid cleanup and finishing work after a shift. Doing paperwork, attending meetings, and performing other administrative duties are common forms of off-the-clock work. When an employee makes a time-consuming mistake, the employer may want to recoup losses by making that employee fix or redo this work without pay. However, the action falls under an illegal off-the-clock violation, so is failing to pay workers for job time spent waiting for new assignments or projects to become available. In October 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed off on several changes to state employment law. The following are three changes.
First, the Governor has expanded restrictions on non-compete agreements. Employers cannot deny former employees the right to employment in a lawful trade, business, or profession. Failing to comply may result in civil penalties of $2,500 per violation. Next, by no later than July 1, 2024, a majority of California employers need to implement Workplace Violence Prevention Plans. The plans will show how to report and respond to violent workplace incidents. In addition, employers must provide annual employee training on workplace violence-related topics and the plan. Lastly, from the start of 2024, workers will receive five days of protected time off related to a “reproductive loss event.” Qualified events include stillbirth, miscarriage, failed adoption or surrogacy, and unsuccessful assisted reproduction. The law differs from the state’s bereavement leave law since employers will not have the right to request documentation confirming that such a reproductive loss event occurred. Based in Los Angeles, Daniel Chammas handles a wide range of defense assignments in the employment law sphere. Maintaining a strong interest in legal developments, Daniel Chammas provides representation that reflects the latest interpretations of state law.
In February 2023, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave California employers a significant victory. Following three years of appeals, it affirmed a district court injunction in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta that struck down Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), for the reason that it is already covered under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Created to promote arbitration agreements as a dispute resolution mechanism, the FAA has consistently been found by the U.S. Supreme Court to preempt state laws that seek to prevent arbitration agreements from being enforced. Signed into law in 2020, AB 51 concluded five years of state efforts to legislate rules that stop employers from requiring that workers enter into arbitration agreements as a prerequisite of employment. With the most recent ruling in place, California employers continue to have the right to employ mandatory arbitration agreements, both for new hires and existing employees. They can also require employees to waive (conditional to employment) their rights to litigate claims under the California Labor Code and Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Daniel Chammas is a Los Angeles corporate defense attorney who provides employment law solutions across a range of industries. A skilled litigator, Daniel Chammas represents corporations in a range of class action defenses, including those involving wage and hour claims.
In general, wage and hour laws in California are more protective of workers than federal mandates and laws in most other states. In addition, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) provides a consumer-protection route, independent of violations of the Labor Code, for plaintiffs to claim “fraudulent,” “unfair,” and “unlawful” business practices. The statute of limitations for UCL cases is four years, a year longer than Labor Code claims. Employees who win cases can recover attorneys’ fees, a privilege not afforded to employers. Class actions exist as a way of handling the claims of multiple plaintiffs. It’s important to note that California workers have another option in Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) actions. These are not lawsuits brought by plaintiffs, but law enforcement actions on behalf of the state, related to labor violations claimed against employers. The filing procedures of PAGA actions require initially working with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which has discretion to pursue the claim itself. Otherwise, the employee can file the PAGA suit on their own. Serving Los Angeles clients as a labor and employment defense attorney, Daniel Chammas delivers legal results across a range of industries, with a focus on employment law. Daniel Chammas maintains a close watch on legal developments, including the two-decade-long battle over the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 as one of his last acts in office after being recalled near the start of a second term, Senate Bill 796 provides workers with a ready means of filing collective action suits against employers for claims related to violations of the state laws that dictate working conditions. This provided plaintiff attorneys and unions with a stronger hand in pursuing cases outside the California Labor Commissioner’s Office. Since PAGA was instituted, unions and some trial attorneys have worked to expand the reach of the law, while business groups have remained steadfastly opposed. In 2018, the Supreme Court of California significantly expanded the potential impact of PAGA through restrictions on California employers’ ability to classify workers as independent contractors (who do not need to abide by state labor laws). This was codified in 2019 through Assembly Bill 5, which turned numerous contractors into payroll employees. In response, Uber and Lyft convinced state voters to make them exempt from the new classification rules. PAGA’s potential scope was also expanded by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022, with one law providing workers with the right of refusal to work, should conditions be unsafe, and another requiring that employers provide disclosure of wage scales to potential and current employees. In response to these expansions of PAGA, Californians for Fair Play and Accountability, a group of businesses and employers, has collected signatures that will place a measure that would repeal PAGA completely (while expanding state labor law enforcement) on the 2024 ballot. Daniel Chammas is an attorney based in Los Angeles, California. He graduated from Stanford Law in 1999 and has since worked as an attorney with various law firms in Los Angeles. Currently, Daniel Chammas works at Ford & Harrison LLP, handling various legal issues like wage and hour class actions and trade secret litigation for organizations.
Trade secrets are an organization's intellectual property containing confidential details about products and services. For example, formulas, special designs and processes, clientele lists, and inventions are some information companies can classify as trade secrets. However, certain criteria must be met to classify any information as a trade secret. The first criterion is that the owner of the information has to prove that it has measurable commercial value because of its confidentiality. Next, the trade secret owner must prove they made conscious and consistent efforts to safeguard the information. A company can protect its trade secrets by acquiring copyrights and patents or placing them under trademarks. They can also require their employees and other individuals with access to their trade secrets to sign contracts (such as non-disclosures, non-competes, and confidentiality agreements), preventing them from stealing or misappropriating whatever secrets they can access. When a company has valid proof that its trade secrets have been accessed and taken by a person or another establishment without proper authorization, it can begin a legal process known as trade secret litigation to protect its interests. Organizations can also use litigation to seek reimbursement for any financial loss they suffer because of their trade secrets exposure. A skilled litigator with extensive experience defending companies against employment claims, Daniel Chammas is an attorney with Ford & Harrison LLP in Los Angeles. In this work, he focuses on collective actions alleging “off-the-clock violations,” missed breaks, discrimination, and employee misclassification. Attorney Daniel Chammas also represents companies in wage and hour class actions and PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) actions in Los Angeles and beyond.
Enacted in 2004, the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) focuses on enforcing California's labor laws. Thanks to PAGA, employees who are victims of labor violations by their present or past employers can file a lawsuit against the employer to hold the employer accountable for the labor violation and help the state penalize the employer for the offense. Examples of labor violations are wages paid below the minimum wage rate, employee misclassification, discrimination, and missed breaks. PAGA claims are solely qui tam claims, which means aggrieved workers are essentially exposing labor law violators to penalties, without expecting compensation in return. They may, however, sue for civil penalties based on the California Labor Code. Any aggrieved worker who seeks to pursue a PAGA claim must send a prior notification to their employee and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency online within one year after the most recent labor violation by the employer occurred. The notice must include a partial or full summary of labor violation events, provisions of the violated state's labor laws, and a complete or partial list of aggrieved entities. They must send the notice to the employer by certified mail. Sending the PAGA notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency allows the agency to investigate the claim within 65 days. The agency may intervene within 65 days of receiving the notice. If the agency does not intervene, the aggrieved employee may proceed to file a lawsuit against the employer. The employee has 60 days to file the lawsuit, during which they may include other applicable violations by the employer. Daniel Chammas is an experienced attorney who has worked for several firms in Los Angeles. Leveraging his significant legal experience, Daniel Chammas is an attorney at Ford & Harrison, LLP, in Los Angeles. He concentrates his practice on high-stakes cases involving off-the-clock violations, missed breaks, and employee misclassification.
Employee misclassification is a labor violation in California that happens when an employer abusively classifies a worker as an independent contractor when the worker is actually an employee and consequently deprives the worker of employee protections, such as paid sick leave, the minimum wage, and overtime. When an employee sues an employer for misclassification, they may be eligible for compensation for the loss due to the misclassification. California's labor laws also penalize employers for any additional compensation deduction due to misclassification. For example, the state proscribes an employer from deducting a misclassified employee's compensation for employer materials, equipment maintenance, government licenses, space rentals, and services during the period of misclassification. The employee is liable for reimbursing the misclassified employee for these violations. The conditions for classifying an individual as an employee may vary depending on the occupation, certification, and other factors. Often, an individual is an employee unless their hirer establishes conditions, including freedom from the hirer's direction or control, freedom to engage in a different business that is essentially the hirer's competitor, and freedom to work outside the hirer's business environment. Again, these conditions only apply to certain occupations. Real estate appraisers, home inspectors, freelance writers and editors, security brokers, licensed lawyers, and licensed doctors are not classified based on these conditions. Daniel Chammas is a Los Angeles attorney who delivers experienced defense representation to corporate clients in various areas of employment and discrimination law. Apprised of legal developments in his state, Daniel Chammas counsels clients on aspects of California labor law such as the Garment Worker Protection Act.
Also known as Senate Bill 62, the law went into effect at the beginning of 2022 and pertains to contractors defined as garment manufacturing operations or factories. It stipulates that garment manufacturing workers must receive an hourly rate not under the minimum wage. They cannot by law receive a piece rate, and employers that pay such rates are liable for compensatory damages totaling $200 for each pay period. One exception to this law involves employees covered under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. However, this only applies in cases where the regular hourly rate of pay is not less than 30 percent above the California minimum wage, and premium wages are offered for overtime hours. In addition, there must be monitoring and dispute resolution mechanisms related to nonpayment of wages within the agreement. One significant element of the law involves joint and several liability applied in cases where contractor’s employees are found by the Labor Commissioner to have wages owed. In other words, the manufacturer, contractor, and brand guarantor all bear liability for the wages owed over a contracted time period in full. |
Important Links
Categories
|