In this Issue:
California Law Regarding Overtime for Computer Software Employees Amended
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law legislation which provides that certain software employees are not eligible for overtime pay if: (1) they earn a minimum of $36 per hour or an annual salary of not less that $75,000 per year for full-time employment; (2) are paid at least once a month and in a monthly amount of no less than $6,250; and (3) are primarily engaged in “intellectual or creative” work. This law differs from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which sets a lower hourly rate of pay. Under California law, employers must comply with both this new legislation and the FLSA. Employers should audit their computer-related job positions to determine whether any are subject to the new legislation.
Contact for more information: Kristine E. Kwong
Employee’s Inability to Perform a Specific Job Is Sufficient to Qualify for Medical Leave Under California Family Rights Act
A hospital hired an employee to work full-time in its housekeeping department. The employee later developed depression as a result of work-related stress and consequently took an unpaid leave of absence. When she refused to return to work, the hospital terminated her. Alleging a violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the employee sued the hospital for not granting her a medical leave of absence. The hospital contended that the employee did not qualify for a medical leave because she was working part-time at another hospital during her leave of absence. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument. The Court held that an employee is entitled to medical leave under the CFRA when the employee can demonstrate she or he cannot work in her current job, not simply a similar job elsewhere. Thus, in determining whether or not an employee is entitled to medical leave under the CFRA, the employer must consider the employee’s specific job, not a broad class of jobs.
Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 43 Cal. 4th 201, 180 P.3d 321, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 570 (Cal. Sup. Ct., April 7, 2008)
Employee’s ADEA Claim Fails for Failure to Show He Was Qualified For Promotion
A flight data specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), sued his employer for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 633a et seq.) The employee, who was over 40 years of age, alleged that the FAA discriminated against him because it denied him a promotion to a full-time, salaried computer specialist position, and instead promoted a younger student intern. The FAA contended that denied the employee’s request for a promotion because the employee lacked skills, did not have one year of specialized experience, and did not establish that he could handle the job responsibilities of a computer specialist. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that in not proving that he was qualified for the position that he sought, the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, one of the requisite elements for a discrimination claim. The court further held that the employee did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that he possessed the necessary skills, knowledge and qualifications for the computer specialist position. In light of this holding, employers should ensure that all of their job descriptions include clear eligibility requirements to avoid any ambiguities regarding whether a job applicant is qualified for a position.
Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929 (9th Cir., Sept.. 2, 2008)
Contact for more information: Holly M. Teel
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. |