By Andrew Sommer and Megan Shaked
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) just announced major changes to the definition of “serious injury or illness” for purposes of California employers’ duty to report certain serious workplace injuries to Cal/OSHA. Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Sec. 6409.1(b), in every case involving a work related death or a serious injury or illness, the employer must “immediately” make a report to Cal/OSHA. Employers may be cited and subject to penalties for failure to make such reports, and reporting such incidents almost always leads to a site inspection by Cal/OSHA, which in turn most often results in Serious or Serious Accident-Related citations.
Cal/OSHA’s prior, longstanding reporting rule defined “serious injury or illness” as any injury or illness occurring in a place of employment or in connection with any employment that requires in-patient hospitalization for a period in excess of 24 hours for treatment other than medical observation, or in which an employee suffers a loss of any member of the body or suffers any serious degree of permanent disfigurement. The old definition excluded injuries or deaths caused by the commission of a Penal Code violation (e.g., an intentional assault and battery), or an auto accident on a public street or highway.
On August 30, 2019, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1805 to revise the definition of a “serious injury or illness” for reporting purposes. The changes appear to be designed to bring Cal/OSHA’s reporting requirement more (but not entirely) in line with fed OSHA’s hospitalization and amputation reporting rule. Specifically, Cal/OSHA’s new reporting requirements: Continue reading
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
By Andrew Sommer, Megan Shaked, and Dan Deacon
As we have reviewed previously on the OSHA Defense Report, federal OSHA’s Rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (aka the E-Recordkeeping Rule) requires small employers that operate in certain “high hazard industries” and all large employers to proactively submit their electronic injury and illness data to OSHA through a web portal – the Injury Tracking Application (“ITA”).
When federal OSHA promulgated the Rule in 2016, it built into the Rule a mandate that all State Plans adopt substantially identical requirements within six months after its publication. Implementation of the federal Rule, however, has been mired in difficulty from industry challenges, shifting guidance, informal changes, extended deadlines and mixed signals about the future of the rule as we transitioned from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. As a result, numerous State OSH programs failed to initially adopt the rule. After some headbutting with federal OSHA, almost all of the delinquent states, including California, have now implemented rules to “catch-up” to the federal OSHA data submission rule.
Delinquent State Plans Began Adopting E-Recordkeeping
In the midst of uncertainty surrounding federal OSHA’s E-Recordkeeping Rule, several State Plans delayed adopting state versions, even after OSHA made it clear that state plans needed to act soon. While the majority of State Plans acted promptly to promulgate their own version of the E-Recordkeeping rule by the end of 2017, eight State Plans had not yet adopted the rule, including:
- California (Cal/OSHA);
- Washington (WA DLI, WISHA, or DOSH);
- Maryland (MOSH);
- Minnesota (MNOSHA);
- South Carolina (SC OSHA);
- Utah (UOSH);
- Wyoming (Wy OSHA); and
- Vermont (VOSHA)
Give the substantial number of State Plans that failed to comply with the Rule’s order, federal OSHA attempted to force covered employers in these State Plans to submit 300A data despite not being subject to the rule or federal OSHA’s jurisdiction. Specifically, on April 30, 2018, federal OSHA issued a Continue reading
Conn Maciel Carey is pleased to announce that Megan Stevens Shaked has joined the firm as a senior associate in its San Francisco, CA office. Ms. Shaked, an experienced employment litigator, will represent clients in a wide-range of employment-related litigation, and counsel clients in myriad legal issues that California employers face in the workplace.
“Megan brings a depth of experience with employment litigation, counseling and training that will enhance the employment law services we provide to employers across all industries,” said Andrew J. Sommer, head of the firm’s California practice.
She will also represent clients in connection with inspections, investigations and enforcement actions involving Cal/OSHA and other OSH-related matters on the West Coast.
“Megan is an ideal attorney to help grow our California practice in general, and our Cal/OSHA bench in particular,” said Eric J. Conn, a co-founder of the firm and Chair of the firm’s national OSHA Practice. “California is a prominent base for our firm’s work, and Megan brings deep experience with the full range of employment issues that California employers face, including navigating the challenging waters of Cal/OSHA.”
Ms. Shaked has successful first-chair experience in employment law trials, and brings a creative approach to resolving tricky client issues. Those qualities fit perfectly with the CMC model. Ms. Shaked added that: Continue reading