2019 has produced a long list of new employment laws on a myriad of topics that will bring significant changes for California employers in 2020. Workplace safety laws range from a revamped reporting requirement to a new wildfire smoke regulation. Additional laws affecting employers include a new test for determining independent contractor status, a ban on no rehire agreements and many more. Though many of these laws will add items to the employer to-do list, employers have at least secured a one-year reprieve for completing mandatory harassment prevention training introduced last year.
Key changes affecting private sector employers are summarized below. Unless otherwise indicated, these new laws take effect January 1, 2020.
By Megan Shaked and Andrew J. Sommer
A recent California Court of Appeals decision in Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., has further defined the scope of reimbursable business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802, this time in the context of slip-resistant shoes for restaurant workers.
A former server filed an action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking civil penalties on behalf of herself and other “aggrieved employees” for California Labor Code violations, including the failure to reimburse the cost of slip-resistant shoes. Plaintiff alleged a violation of Labor Code section 2802, which requires an employer to reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties.
Plaintiff argued that, because the restaurant required employees to wear slip-resistant, black, closed-toes shoes for safety reasons, such shoes should be provided free of cost or employees should be reimbursed for their cost.
The Court of Appeal, persuaded by the reasoning in an unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Lemus v. Denny’s, Inc., and guidance from the California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), held that section 2802 did not require the restaurant employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes. Specifically, the Court held that the cost of shoes does not qualify as a “necessary expenditure” under section 2802.
In reaching its decision, the Court Continue reading