San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in federal law (12)

Wednesday
May182016

Wage & Hour: DOL Doubles Down on Salary Threshold 

Lawyer for EmployersAttorney for Employers

 

by Tal Burnovski Yeyni

818-907-3224

 

White Collar Overtime ExemptionConsidering all of the political movements regarding minimum wage, equal pay and other wage and hour concerns over the past few years, most employers could read the handwriting on the wall regarding overtime rules. That handwriting has now become official:

The Department of Labor Final Rule regarding the minimum salary level required for the exemption of executive, administrative and professional employees was released today.

In the event of a conflict between federal and state laws, employers must comply with the rule most favorable to employees.  Prior to today’s Final Rule, an employee designated exempt under Federal law must have made at least $455 per week ($23,660 annually). This amount is substantially lower than the minimum salary required for exemption under California law, thus requiring California employers to comply with the state salary level test for exemption.

Here are the key changes: 

  • DOL Final Rule: Effective December 1, 2016, the "standard" salary level will increase to $913 per week (equivalent to $47,476 annually for a full-year employee), nearly double the current federal weekly threshold.  The DOL launched a Frequently Asked Questions page here.


  • California Employers: In this state, the current threshold is $41,600 ($3,466.67 monthly; $800 weekly), so California employers must comply with the higher Federal salary level (for exemption purposes) as of December 1st.  


  • Use of Bonuses to Satisfy the Test: Nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) may be used to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary test requirement.

    Moreover, if an employee does not earn enough in nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) in a given quarter to retain their exempt status, the DOL now permits a "catch-up" payment at the end of the quarter. If the employer chooses not to make the catch-up payment, the employee would be entitled to overtime pay for any overtime hours worked during the quarter.


  • Automatic Updates: To ensure effectiveness of the salary level test, the DOL will update the standard salary compensation requirements every 3 years, with the first update taking effect on January 1, 2020.


  • Increase in California Minimum Wage Requirements: Note that last month, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill gradually increasing California’s minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by January 1, 2022 (for employers with 26 or more employees).  As the salary level for exemption is an extension of California’s minimum wage (two times the state’s minimum wage), employers must pay close attention to the automatic updates of the DOL and the increase in California’s minimum wage, to determine which salary test they must comply with for the exemption. 

Here’s California’s newly approved Minimum Wage Schedule:  

Wage and hour and other employment laws can become very confusing given how state and federal regulations can trump one another. Employers should seek the advice of experienced employment counsel to stay compliant.

Tal Burnovski Yeyni is an attorney in our Employment Practice Group

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Thursday
Feb112016

Mile Marker: Google Beginning to Clear Legal Hurdles for Self-Driving Cars (but many more ahead)

Personal InjuryPersonal Injury Attorney

 

 

by Andrew L. Shapiro

(818) 907-3230

 

Self-Driving-Cars

 

Can self-driving vehicles (SDVs) use the carpool lane? That may be a legal question for another day, as SDVs still have barricades to overcome before moving to the fast lane and becoming available commercially for consumers. 

But the Federal Government opened the door – by giving serious consideration to, and taking the first steps in expanding, the previously unambiguous term “driver” – to include the Artificial Intelligence (AI) operating Google’s Self-Driving System, along with human motor vehicle operators.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, or Administration) just responded to a November letter from Chris Urmson, Google’s Director of the company’s Self-Driving Car Project, which requested the interpretation of federal driving laws as they pertain to SDVs. Google hopes to make SDVs commercially available to the public by 2020, and that means making them compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

The NHTSA did grant some interpretations, but remains hesitant on others, citing a need for further Google SDV testing and further legislation in the future.

One reason for the Administration’s caution is that most FMVSS were written for vehicles of the past century, when all cars had human drivers sitting in the front left of a vehicle, with access to, and control of, steering and braking systems. The laws weren’t written to accommodate AI drivers or cars.

But the NHTSA did manage to favorably interpret some of Google’s questions re SDVs. They include:

1. Self-Driving Systems are drivers, in terms of certain operations like using turn signals and hazard signals; making transmission shifts; idling; parking and accelerating. 

2. Driver seatbelts may not be necessary, since the NHTSA interprets “driver” as the SDS in the case of Google’s proposed vehicle design: 

“It is possible that the provision as specifically written is not necessary for safety as applied to Google’s vehicle design, but Google has not demonstrated that in its present interpretation request.  FMVSS No. 208 would need amendment to clarify how a vehicle design like Google’s might comply with it.  One safety concern is that a human occupant could sit in any DSP [designated seating position], and that therefore the non-wearing of a seat belt by any occupant could create a safety risk.”  

3. Questions re Electronic Stability Control Systems (ESC) need further review, because the FMVSS mandate specific performance requirements for ESC systems. Though the NHTSA agrees that a Google-designed SDS is in fact the actual driver, the Administration feels a need to determine in future: 

“…how to evaluate the SDS control of the steering inputs, and whether and how to modify test conditions and procedures to address more clearly the situation of a vehicle with steering controlled entirely by an AI driver, with no mechanism for the vehicle occupants to affect the steering.”

A Futuristic Legislative Highway for Driverless Cars

Artificially Intelligent Vehicles

Self-driving test vehicles already cruise the streets. However, California DMV rules – where Google operates most of its prototypes – require human, licensed drivers to be inside with access to steering, brake and gas pedals. They must monitor the SDV’s operations at all times, and be ready to take control should technology fail or other emergencies arise.

Google’s November letter to NHTSA expresses concern that human error will make their completely autonomous SDVs unsafe should the humans try to override artificial intelligence.

The Administration acknowledged this concern, paving the way for years of further extensive testing and monitoring of vehicles completely controlled by AI with no human override capabilities.

But the proverbial genie is out of the bottle – Federal Rules will have to be modified to keep up with and include SDVs. There is much work to be done on both sides of this issue before we will have an SDV in our own garages – a prospect that is both scary and exciting for some of us.

 

Andrew L. Shapiro is the Chair of our Personal Injury Practice Group

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Tuesday
Jan262016

On the Road: Safer Rental Cars

Injury Attorney Los AngelesAccident Attorney

by David B. Bobrosky

(818) 907-3254

 

A mind boggling number of cars are on the recall list for safety problems – including about 34 million American vehicles for defective Takata airbags alone. Additionally, last year was a record for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which levied nearly $300 million in fines against Takata, Honda, Chrysler and BMW, according to Car and Driver.

Defective Cars

Recalls and fines are all well and good for holding automakers and their suppliers accountable for safety but sometimes, it takes solid legislation to curb the defects that injure and kill drivers and their passengers. That may come with the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act.

The Safe Rental Car Act is named for two sisters driving north from Ojai to Santa Cruz in a rented PT Cruiser in 2004. While driving, the car swerved off California Highway 101, hit an oncoming 18-wheeler and then burst into flames.

Initially the rental company blamed bad driving, and even speculated the accident wasn’t an accident at all – that Raechel (the driver) committed suicide and killed her sister as well.  The truth however, is that there was a recall for PT Cruisers because of faulty power steering hoses, which potentially could lead to loss of steering and fires.

There were no laws prohibiting vehicle rental companies from continuing to loan out cars despite these dangerous recalls. In fact, an area manager for Enterprise (the company that rented the car to the Houck sisters) said that it was corporate policy to rent out unrepaired, recalled vehicles if no other cars were available.

Cally Houck, mother of Raechel and Jacqueline, spearheaded a campaign to put a stop to this policy, which she considers “corporate malfeasance”. Enterprise admitted liability and was ordered by a jury to pay the Houck parents $15 million in 2010. The company began supporting the Houck Bill shortly thereafter, and was soon followed by Hertz and Avis.

The Houck Bill: Corporate Roll Call

Since then, several organizations and corporations (including the American Car Rental Association, Honda and General Motors) eventually helped champion Houck’s cause.

On the other hand, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the National Automobile Dealers Association opposed the bill, citing less dangerous defects like mislabeled parts and other minor issues which may prohibit companies from getting their cars leased or sold.

Chrysler, maker of the PT Cruiser and company subject to some of those NHTSA fines mentioned above, was opposed to the Safe Rental Car Act.  

Car Recall

The bill also found opposition with car dealers, who feared a law that could pit large rental companies against consumers – who should the dealerships service first, given a finite number of parts and services available? Auto dealers also argued that they shouldn’t be treated like rental companies, as they only keep a few cars on hand as “loaner vehicles” when customers come in for service. 

Safer Cars: Where Do we Stand Now?

The Houck Safe Rental Car Act passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and was then signed by President Obama as part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. It amended §30102(a) of title 49, U.S. Code. The law now affects (a) vehicles under 10,000 pounds, (b) rented without a driver for less than four months, (c) that are part of a fleet of 35 or more vehicles (most auto dealers providing “loaner” vehicles will be exempt from the law under this condition) used for rental purposes. 

  1. Rental companies will not be able to rent or sell vehicles once they receive notification of a recall approved by the NHTSA until the defect is remedied. 

  2. Companies must comply within 24 hours of notice, unless the company has more than 5,000 vehicles in service. In that case, vehicles must be grounded within 48 hours of notice. 

  3. A company may rent, but not sell or lease, recalled vehicles if the remedy is not immediately available and if the company takes action to eliminate the risk (i.e. the company may remove defective floor mats that may jam under gas and brake pedals, should replacement mats not be immediately available from the manufacturer). 

The Secretary of Transportation will submit a congressional report within a year of enactment of the Safe Rental Car Act, regarding the effectiveness of the amendments and findings of related studies.

This may not be the far-reaching safety bill that Cally Houck initially intended, but hopefully, it will help prevent or at least minimize the number of truly horrible accidents like the one that took her daughters’ lives, from occurring in the future.

David B. Bobrosky is a Shareholder in our Personal Injury Practice Group

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Friday
Jun262015

Supreme Court: 14th Amendment Requires Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

Gay Marriage LawCalifornia Bar Certified Specialist, Family Law

 

 

by Vanessa Soto Nellis
818.907.3274

 

 

 

 

In 1883 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that couples engaging in interracial sex (Pace v. Alabama) are not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified just 15 years previously. Amendment XIV addressed citizenship rights and equal protections in a post-Civil War era when former slaves struggled for recognition.

In 1967 SCOTUS went a step further in Loving v. Virginia, invalidating state laws prohibiting marriages between interracial couples.

Nearly 50 years later, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision re Obergefell v. Hodges, invalidated 13 state's laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. SCOTUS cited Confucius: "marriage lies at the foundation of government" and Cicero, "The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family."

…history is the beginning of these cases. The re­spondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. . . The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. . .it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions.

History circles back. SCOTUS rulings for Pace, Loving and Obergefell relied heavily on the 14th Amendment which attaches a Due Process Clause, upholding the Bill of Rights, or first 10 amendments to the Constitution. In Obergefell, Justice Anthony Kennedy states that the Bill of Rights gives protections for "personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs."

Further, a judicial responsibility exists, which may sometimes be guided by traditional views:

That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present. . .The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.

The SCOTUS opinion for Obergefell is a landmark ruling. The respondents claimed there hasn't been enough rhetoric for the courts to make such an important decision. But the opinion announced today disagreed, listing countless referenda, debates, studies and an untold number of court cases. There have been more than 100 amici briefs ('friend of the court' filings) from businesses, labor unions, religious organizations, etc., all stating their opinions or agendas regarding same-sex marriage. There has been the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and then the repeal of DOMA.

Despite the respondent's appeal to wait, the Obergefell opinion contends that the Constitution allows for asserting a fundamental right without waiting for legislative action. Therefore, the SCOTUS opinion concludes:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…Their (plaintiffs') hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions…The Constitution grants them that right.

 

Vanessa Soto Nellis a California State Bar Certified Specialist in Family Law. Contact her via email: vnellis@lewitthackman.com; or by phone: 818.907.3274.

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Friday
Jul112014

The Road Ahead for California Transportation Industry Employers

Wage and Hour Defense Attorney Employment Defense Attorney

 

by Sue M. Bendavid & Hannah Sweiss

 

The 9th Circuit Rules FAA Authorization Act Does Not Preempt State Meal and Rest Break Laws

On July 9, 2014, in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, Inc. the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, for motor carrier employers, California’s meal and rest break laws are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”).      

Class Action: 349 delivery drivers and installers claim Defendants create an environment that discourages employees from taking breaks.Up until this ruling, motor carrier employers tried to argue they need not comply with California’s meal and rest break rules, as those rules had an impermissible negative impact on “prices, routes and services” and therefore, those laws were preempted by federal law under the FAAAA.

Defendants in Dilts argued compliance with California’s meal and rest break laws would force drivers to deviate from routes and would result in a cessation of delivery services throughout the day. This could cause longer delivery times and greater costs to employers. However, the Ninth Circuit was unpersuaded.  

 

The Ruling's Impact on California Employers     

So what does this mean for certain motor carriers in the transportation industry?

Generally, under California law an employer must provide a duty free meal break of 30 minutes for nonexempt employees who work more than five hours and a second 30 minute duty free meal break for those who work more than 10 hours. If a nonexempt employee’s total daily work time is at least 3.5 hours, employers must also provide a paid rest period of 10 minutes for every four hours or major fraction thereof.

Based on this decision, motor carrier employers may have to: 

  • Hire more drivers,

  • Stagger employee break times,

  • Reallocate resources to maintain a particular service level,

  • Allow drivers to make minor deviations from their routes, and

  • Make other changes to ensure compliance with California’s meal and rest break rules.

A failure to do so may result in substantial penalties and is expected to result in more class actions on this issue. 

Sue M. Bendavid and Hannah Sweiss are Wage and Hour Defense Attorneys at our Firm. Contact them directly: sbendavid@lewitthackman.com or 818.907.3220; hsweiss@lewitthackman.com or 818.907.3260, for more information.

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120