›EEOC Reports Job Bias Charges Hit Record High in 2010 - Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal agency that polices several federal antidiscrimination employment laws) announced that they received a record amount of charges from workers in FY 2010. The EEOC's press release states that last year, for the first time ever, claims for retaliation - i.e., claims that an employer took manevolent behavior against an employee for that employee's act of opposing a discriminatory practice - surpassed racial discrimination as the most commonly filed charge. The press release states that in 2010, "the EEOC secured more than $404 million in monetary benefits from employers." With figures like these, companies would do well to make sure they know the law, follow the law, and take all reasonable measures to prevent claims from occurring.

›Court Permits Collective Action for Civil Penalties for Employer's Failure to Provide Suitable Seating to Proceed - In California, the specific wages and working conditions of employees are set by "wage orders" promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission. California Labor Code §1198 makes the hiring of any employee under conditions of labor prohibited by the applicable wage order "unlawful."

But some of the less notable requirements in the wage orders often receive limited attention by employers. For example, Wage Order 7-2001, which covers retail stores, stipulates that "[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats." No doubt some employers snub these requirements. This might be because - unlike the requirements for the payment of minimum wage and overtime - it is not instantly clear that an aggrieved employee can sue to obtain financial damages for their violation.

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, however, signals that employers who fail to heed such regulations may face stiff consequences. The California Legislature recently passed the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). In short, PAGA aims to supplement governmental enforcement of California's Labor Code by allowing employees to recover monetary penalties for company violations that were previously recoverable only by the State. Also, PAGA itself specifies monetary penalties for violations that did not exist before, permitting the employee to recover those as well. In addition, and significantly, PAGA permits the employee to bring the lawsuit "on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees." Thus, like in a class action, the employee may litigate to recover the monetary penalties for all of the employer's employees. The aggregate amount sought after by the lawsuit thus can be a sizeable sum of money.

In Bright v. 99 Only Stores, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1472 (2010), a sales employee sued her employer under PAGA, looking to recover monetary settlement for the employer's alleged violation of the suitable seating requirement of Wage Order 7-2001. The court rejected the employer's stance that the requirement was not enforceable by the worker under PAGA, ruling that the suit can proceed. Pursuant to PAGA, the employee is seeking up to two hundred dollars for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation.

The Bright case should provoke employers to pay much closer attention to all of the seemingly lesser requirements of the wage orders - such as the provisions regarding change rooms, resting facilities and the fluctuation of temperature. If companies violate any of these requirements, Bright indicates they may face a costly PAGA claim on behalf of all their employees.

This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.