The California Supreme Court has issued two important new decisions—both with good news for employers.
In one case, Green v. State of California, the high court ruled that in a disability discrimination case filed under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the employee bears the burden of proving that he or she is capable of performing the essential duties of the job. Although this is the standard that already applies under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the language of the FEHA created some doubt as to the correct standard under state law. The employee in this case unsuccessfully argued that the employer had the burden of proving that the employee was not capable of performing his duties.
In the other decision, Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc., the Supreme Court held that California wage and hour law didn’t bar Ralphs Grocery from maintaining an employee bonus plan that calculated store employee bonuses based on store profitability. The plan’s formula took into account expenses and losses due to cash shortages, merchandise shortages and shrinkage, workers’ compensation costs, tort claims by nonemployees, and other losses. The employees contended that this formula violated Labor Code provisions prohibiting employers from taking back any part of an employee’s wages and from requiring employees to contribute to workers’ comp costs (whether directly or indirectly). The employees also argued that the plan violated Wage Order terms stating that employers may not make wage deductions or require reimbursement from employees for cash shortages, breakage, or loss of equipment, unless the shortage, breakage, or loss is caused by the employee’s dishonesty, willful act, or gross negligence.
The HR Management & Compliance Report: How To Comply with California Wage & Hour Law, explains everything you need to know to stay in compliance with the state’s complex and ever-changing rules, laws, and regulations in this area. Coverage on bonuses, meal and rest breaks, overtime, alternative workweeks, final paychecks, and more.
According to the high court, nothing in the law “suggests that an employer violates California wage-protection laws by providing, as Ralphs did, supplementary compensation designed to reward employees, over and above their regular wages, if and when their collective efforts produced a positive financial result for the store where they worked.”
We’ll have full details on these new decisions in upcoming issues of the California Employer Advisor.
Additional Resources: