Unlike last year, the California legislature was relatively quiet in enacting new laws in the employment arena.  However, the Courts issued a number of rulings over the past year of which employers should be aware in conducting business in 2006.

A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

1. The California Supreme Court recently held that an employee may sue for sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment caused by a Supervisor who gave preferable treatment to several female employees with whom he was having romantic relationships even though the employee who filed suit was not the subject of the Supervisor’s attention.  Miller v. Department of Corrections.  This is a classic example of bad facts making bad law. 
   
   What You Should Do: Employers may want to consider implementing a non-fraternization policy in their Employee Handbook which would prohibit certain romantic relationships (even if consensual) between employees. However, care must be taken in drafting such a policy to avoid a claim that the employer is invading the privacy rights of two consenting adults to maintain a relationship.
   
   
2. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that sexual harassment may exist based on shouting, intimidation and foul language where a harasser was more abusive to women than to men.  EEOC v. National Education Association.
    
   What You Should Do: If you have a “ranter and raver” in the work force, monitor whether there is a pattern of such abuse directed toward one sex or person in another protected category, such as age or race.   

B. WAGE AND HOUR ISSUES

1. Meal Periods and Rest Breaks: Remember, class action lawsuits for meal period and rest break violations continue to be hot areas, so be mindful of your obligations to non-exempt employees.  Such employees must receive, and the employer must require employees to take a thirty (30) minute unpaid meal period for work in excess of five (5) hours.  Employees must be provided, but are not required to take a ten (10) minute paid rest break for every four hours worked which should be provided in the middle of the work period if practicable.
   
   What You Should Do: Be sure you are requiring non-exempt employees to take meal periods.  Employers must record the daily start and end time of each meal period.  Also, be sure you have a written notice posted and/or in your Employee Handbook advising non-exempt employees of the right to a rest break. 
   
   
2. Labor Code Section 213 has been amended to authorize employers to pay an employee’s final wages by an authorized direct deposit.  The time period within which to pay final wages remains unchanged.
   
   
3. The hourly rate which must be paid to an exempt computer professional in order to maintain an exempt status has been raised to $47.81. 
   

C.  NEW POSTERS/FORMS

1. There is a new poster for the Uniformed Services Employment In Reemployment Rights Act.
   
   
2. There is also a new I-9 Form.
   
To obtain more information regarding posters and forms, go to www.dir.ca.gov.

Leonard Brazil provides advice and guidance to employers to minimize and avoid employment liability in such areas as wage and hour laws, discrimination, harassment and other claims of wrongful termination, and to operate within the boundaries of employment laws in a common sense and practical manner.  For more information regarding the Firm’s employment practice, go to www.clarktrev.com

Employer Bulletin is published by the law firm of Clark & Trevithick as a service to our clients and friends. You have our permission to forward this newsletter to business associates and friends. If you are not already a subscriber to this newsletter and wish to be, click here. The content of this bulletin should be view as only a general summary of the law and not as a substitute for legal advice in a particular matter. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, you may unsubscribe here.

© 2006 Clark & Trevithick