On December 16, 2005, the California Fair

Transcription

1 Winter 2006 All We Do Is WorkSM A BULLETIN ON EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, BENEFITS AND IMMIGRATION LAW FOR CLIENTS AND FRIENDS OF JACKSON LEWIS LLP Fair Employment and Housing Commission Issues Proposed Regulations on Harassment Prevention Training On December 16, 2005, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ( FEHC ) published draft regulations, in compliance with the California Administrative Procedure Act, to provide more detailed guidance to employers regarding how to comply with Assembly Bill 1825 [California Government Code section ( AB 1825 )]. The regulatory process provides the opportunity for public comments on the Commission s proposals. Accordingly, the proposed regulations may change significantly prior to their finalization and adoption. The regulations will be codified at California Code of Regulations Section under the heading Harassment Training and Education. As California employers already know, AB 1825 requires employers doing business in California and employing 50 or more workers to provide sexual harassment prevention training and retraining for supervisors. According to Michael J. Lotito, Esq., coordinator of the Jackson Lewis Management Education Practice Group, The proposed regulations provide much needed clarification on ambiguities in the AB 1825 statute; for example, the regulations as currently drafted clarify that AB 1825 applies to out-of-state employers with California employees, and that the 50-employee threshold takes into account employees outside of the state. Covered employers must be in compliance with AB 1825 as of December 31, 2005, and must repeat the supervisory training every two years. The proposed regulations discuss the types of training that satisfy the law, as well as the methods employers can use to track compliance with the retraining requirement. Electronic-based learning is specifically permitted. The proposed regulations also give a detailed description of what qualifications trainers should have and what the training curriculum should include. Proposed Regulations Are Not Retroactive The FEHC recognizes that AB 1825 requires California employers with 50 or more employees to provide the mandated sexual harassment training to all of their supervisory employees (who were employed as of July 1, 2005) by January 1, 2006, well before the proposed regulations will take effect. The regulations acknowledge that employers complying with AB 1825 s mandate have not and will not have the benefit of the FEHC s regulations. Thus, an employer will not be required to retrain its supervisors if the employer has made a substantial, good faith effort to comply with [AB 1825]. Types of Training The proposed regulations contemplate three types of training: classroom, e-learning or webinars. Classroom training is defined as in-person, instructor-led instruction, created by a qualified instructional designer and provided to a supervisor by a qualified trainer, in a setting removed from the supervisor s usual work environment. E-learning is defined as individualized, computer-based training created by a qualified instructional designer, and webinar is defined as a web-based seminar created by a qualified instructional designer and taught by a qualified trainer. The proposed regulations explicitly state that AB 1825 training can be accomplished using a variety of non-classroom instructional methods. The law s phrase other effective interactive training and education is defined as non-classroom instruction using audio, video, or computer technology, with an opportunity to ask questions and have them answered. E-training and webinars shall incorporate feedback or a participation component at least once every 15 minutes, so that employees are measurably engaged in the training INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Fair Employment and Housing Commission Issues Proposed Regulations on Harassment Prevention Training COURT WATCH Beware of the Equal Opportunity Harasser! Workplace Romance May Create Hostile Work Environment for Other Employees Reprisals for Refusing Management Order Believed to Be Discriminatory May Constitute Retaliation Importance of Employer Speech at Heart of Second Blow to California s Union Neutrality Legislation Pre-Dispute Jury Trial Waivers Are Unenforceable Corporate Officers Not Personally Liable for Employer s Unpaid-Wage Debt Partial Day Vacation Deductions OK; Do Not KO Exempt Status Court Parses the Meaning of Reasonable Accommodation under State and Federal Law Vision-Impaired Drivers Lose Suit Over Delivery Job Rejections PACIFIC NORTHWEST NEWS & VIEWS Washington and Oregon Minimum Wages to Increase in 2006 Alaska s Minimum Salary Requirement for Exemptions Differs from the FLSA Court Rules That Overtime Obligation Restricted to In-State Employment LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE 1

2 EDITORIAL BOARD: M. Katheryn Bradley, Esq. (206) Michael J. Lotito, Esq Robert Pattison, Esq., , Jennifer Brown Shaw, Esq., , Margaret R. Bryant, Esq., , This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis LLP and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis LLP. Jackson Lewis LLP represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed above or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. 2006, Jackson Lewis LLP Qualifications of Trainers According to the proposed regulations, trainers and educators may include California licensed attorneys, human resource professionals, psychologists or others provided they have legal education or practical experience in harassment training and knowledge of California laws prohibiting unlawful harassment. The definition of trainers and educators also includes instructional designers who are individuals creating the content for a classroom training, e-training or webinar. The proposed regulations attempt to build flexibility into the requirements for trainers, as well as give examples of the qualifications and qualities that make good trainers or educators. For example, the proposed regulations describe the [d]esirable qualities for an effective trainer or educator [as including] a person who: can use various training methodologies; can facilitate small and large group discussions; is an effective listener; has a credible, positive professional reputation, and continues to learn about gender and cultural issues and concerns. On the other hand, [u]ndesirable qualities for an effective trainer or educator include a person who is or has a reputation of being in the workplace or the instructional environment: a hugger, sexual, flirtatious, aggressive, arrogant, abusive, demeaning to women or men, telling offensive jokes or using sexual, racial, religious, sexual orientation or other protected bases stereotypes or derogatory language. The proposed regulations require that the trainer or educator be qualified to train about the following: (A) what is unlawful harassment; (B) how to intervene when harassing behavior occurs in the workplace; (C) how to report harassment complaints; (D) how to respond to a harassment complaint; (E) how to investigate harassment complaints and an employer s obligation to do so; (F) the illegality of retaliation for filing a harassment complaint and how to prevent retaliation from occurring when an employee has filed a harassment complaint; and (G) the employer s anti-harassment policy. The proposed regulations encourage trainers and educators to use hypothetical situations or examples to illustrate the principles being taught. Trainers and educators should also encourage active participation in the training by asking questions of the supervisors, by facilitating problem-solving discussions, or by giving tests to ensure that the information is understood. Content and Length of Training The proposed regulations also describe the required content of AB 1825 training: (1) the definition of unlawful harassment under FEHA and under Title VII (employers also may include in their training definitions of other types of prohibited harassment); (2) FEHA and Title VII statutory provisions and case law regarding the prohibition against, and the prevention of, unlawful harassment; (3) the types of conduct that constitute unlawful harassment; (4) the remedies and resources available to employees who are the victims of harassment (for example, to whom they should report any alleged harassment); (5) strategies to prevent unlawful harassment in the workplace; (6) practical examples, including but not limited to role plays, case studies, group discussions, and examples with which the employees will be able to identify and which they can apply to their work setting; (7) the confidentiality of the complaint process; (8) how effectively to investigate a harassment complaint; (9) [W]hat to do if the supervisor is personally accused of harassment; [and (10)] the contents of the employer s anti-harassment policy and how to utilize it if a harassment complaint is filed. The two hours of required training must consist of either two hours of classroom or webinar training or the amount of time that the same content may be covered in an e-learning program for an average learner. The FEHC tried to balance flexibility for employers with its concern that the information be given in long enough segments that the training is effective by not requiring the training to be completed in two consecutive hours. But, [f]or classroom training and webinars, the minimum duration of a training segment shall be no less than half an hour. For e-training, the minimum training segment shall be fifteen minutes. Definitions of Employer and Employee The proposed definitions of employer and employee provide that the 50-employee threshold for coverage includes employees not located in California. The FEHC appears persuaded that AB 1825 should be liberally construed to include California employers with less than 50 California employees if such employers have more than 50 employees when out-of-state personnel are counted. While the FEHC recognizes that the California Legislature has no authority over a non-california employer, the Legislature may regulate a California employer with employees both in California and out-of-state. Having 50 or more employees would be defined as employing fifty or more employees for each working day in any twenty consecutive weeks in the current calendar year or preceding calendar year. Definition of Supervisor The proposed regulations would adopt the Fair Employment and Housing Act s definition of supervisor as defining supervisory employees under AB 1825, with the caveat that all personnel, whether or not they are physically located in 2

3 California, who supervise California employees are included. Supervisor means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. Gov t Code 12926(r). New supervisory employees are those promoted or hired to a supervisory position after July 1, 2005, and they must be trained within six months of their hire or promotion. The proposed regulations state non-supervisory employees who attend AB 1825 training will not be deemed supervisory employees solely by virtue of such attendance, and it is hoped this will encourage employers to offer the two-hour harassment training to non-supervisory employees, as well. Stating this position on training for non-supervisory personnel is important since in California employers are strictly liable for unlawful harassment engaged in by their supervisors even when no tangible employment loss takes place. Methods of Tracking Compliance After January 1, 2006, employers must provide two-hours of sexual harassment training to their supervisory employees once every two years. The proposed regulations state that an employer may track its compliance with this requirement by using one of two methods (or a combination of these two methods): (1) Individual tracking, which measures the two-year time period from the date each individual supervisory employee completed the last training; or (2) Training year tracking, which permits an employer to designate a training year in which it trains its supervisors and thereafter must again retrain its supervisors by the end of the next training year, two years later. Thus, with this method, an employer who has trained its supervisors by December 31, 2005, must again train its supervisors by December 31, The proposed regulations give new businesses created after January 1, 2006 six months to comply with AB 1825 s sexual harassment training mandate. Conclusion Copies of the proposed regulations are available on the FEHC s website at The public has until February 10, 2006 to submit comments and to make suggestions for changes to the proposed regulations. Additionally, the FEHC has scheduled two public hearings; February 1, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. at the Hiram Johnson State Office Building Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco; February 10, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building Auditorium, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles. For more information about AB 1825 training and the proposed regulations, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work, or Management Education Practice coordinator and partner Michael J. Lotito at (415) or lotitom@jacksonlewis.com. COURT WATCH A number of recent decisions from federal and state courts impact the employment relationship for West Coast employers. Below are highlights of some of these decisions. Beware of the Equal Opportunity Harasser! Until recently, California employers arguably had a defense to sex discrimination claims based on an employee s abusive, rude, or obnoxious behavior if the employee treated everyone in the workplace the same, that is, equal poorly. However, in EEOC v. National Education Association of Alaska, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that even when inappropriate conduct by an employee is not based on sex or gender, the employer may still be sued for sex discrimination if the employee s behavior affected women and men differently. The court s decision significantly expands the types of conduct that may support a hostile work environment claim. For a full discussion of the court s decision, please go to the Jackson Lewis website: article.cfm?aid=853. 3

4 Workplace Romance May Create Hostile Work Environment for Other Employees California s Supreme Court unanimously has decided that favoritism shown an employee in a romantic relationship with a supervisor may, if sufficiently widespread, create an actionable hostile work environment resulting in unlawful harassment of other employees. The court found the basis for potential sexual harassment liability even when no offensive conduct is directed at the other employees. For the full discussion of the court s decision in Miller v. Department of Corrections, please go the Jackson Lewis website: /legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=818. Reprisals for Refusing Management Order Believed to Be Discriminatory May Constitute Retaliation An employee who refuses to follow a supervisor s order because the employee reasonably believes the order to be discriminatory even if it is not may claim retaliation for any later adverse employment action that materially affects conditions of employment, said the California high court. This is so even if the objecting employee does not explicitly tell her supervisor she believes the order to be discriminatory. For the full discussion of the court s decision in Yanowitz v. L Oreal USA, Inc., please go to the Jackson Lewis website: com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=837. Importance of Employer Speech at Heart of Second Blow to California s Union Neutrality Legislation Another decisive blow has been delivered to the California law that effectively mandates many employers in that state must remain neutral when faced with union organizing efforts. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the state law went too far in interfering with the exchange of speech and ideas during union organizing campaigns and is preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act. This is the second time the same court has rejected the California law, which prohibits hundreds of employers receiving state funds from using any of those fund to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. For the full discussion of the court s second decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, please go to the Jackson Lewis website: /legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=846 The parties have submitted briefs and await a decision as to whether an appeal from the panel s new 2-1 opinion should be heard by the full U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For more information, please contact San Francisco partner Michael J. Lotito, (415) LotitoM@jacksonlewis.com. Pre-Dispute Jury Trial Waivers Are Unenforceable The California Supreme Court has ruled that a contractual agreement to waive a civil jury trial in favor of a bench trial, entered into prior to any dispute between the contracting parties, is unenforceable under the California Constitution and Section 631 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (the Code). While the Code prescribes six means by which parties to a civil suit may waive their jury trial right, a pre-dispute agreement is not one of the means authorized by the statute. The decision expressly disapproves a Court of Appeal decision enforcing such pre-dispute waivers. For the full discussion of the court s decision in Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court, please go to the Jackson Lewis website: article.cfm?aid=826. 4

5 Corporate Officers Not Personally Liable for Employer s Unpaid-Wage Debt The California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the state s labor laws do not impose personal liability on corporate officers and directors for unpaid wages owed by a corporate employer. This includes unpaid overtime pay based on the erroneous classification of workers as exempt employees. For a full discussion of the court s decision in Reynolds v. Bement, please go to the Jackson Lewis website: Partial Day Vacation Deductions OK; Do Not KO Exempt Status The California Court of Appeal has handed the state s employers an enormous victory. The court unanimously ruled that Pacific Gas & Electric s (PG&E s) practice of debiting exempt employees vacation leave banks to cover partialday absences does not render those employees nonexempt under California law [Conley et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Cal. Ct. App. 1st A.D. No A (07/21/05)]. The practice, said the court, is consistent with established federal policy and does not kill the employees overtime exemption. A contrary decision could have conceivably cost the state s employers billions in overtime. Salary Basis Rule Wasn t Violated. A group of PG&E employees disputed the utility s classification of them as exempt. They claimed that the company s practice of charging employees vacation leave banks for partial-day absences was inconsistent with the salary basis requirement that exempted them from mandatory overtime pay. The court ruled, however, that because the deductions from exempt employees vacation leave banks represented days on which those employees had, in fact, taken at least four hours off work, PG&E s vacation policy neither imposed a forfeiture nor operated to prevent vacation pay from vesting as it was earned. All the policy did was regulate the timing of exempt employees use of their vacation time. Therefore, PG&E s vacation pay policy did not destroy their exempt status. Bottom Line. For many years, interpretation of California law by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) precluded employers from making deductions from an exempt employee s vacation bank when the employee elected to take off less than a full day. Recently, DLSE reversed its interpretation. With this court decision, employers now have clear guidance: they may deduct for an exempt employee s partial-day absence without running the risk of losing exempt status. In light of this new interpretation, employers may want to consult with legal counsel regarding whether to revise existing vacation policies. When making a policy change, employers should provide adequate notification to exempt employees in order to ensure proper reporting of partial-day absences. Court Parses the Meaning of Reasonable Accommodation under State and Federal Law The Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal has decided that, in a prima facie case charging disability discrimination under section 12940(a) of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the burden is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff is incapable of performing the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodations, and not on the plaintiff to prove that he or she has the capacity to do so. When a stationary engineer at one of the state s correctional facilities contracted Hepatitis C and suffered from fatigue and a back injury, the assistant warden and return-to-work coordinator refused to return him to his engineering position. The employee filed a disability discrimination claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and later filed a complaint in California superior court. A jury awarded him $597,000 in economic damages and $2,000,000 in noneconomic damages [Green v. California, Cal. Ct. App. 4th A.D. No E (08/24/05)]. Court Rejects Widely Accepted Decision. In affirming the judgment of the lower court, the Fourth District refused to follow the widely accepted decision in Brundage v. Hahn [57 Cal.App.4th 228 (1997)], a California disability discrimination case holding that a plaintiff must first show that he or she is qualified (in other words, able to perform the job). In Brundage, the court considered the plaintiff s state and federal claims together, and 5

6 relied on federal law, believing that the FEHA and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contained similar provisions. The Fourth District, however, noted that the FEHA which bars discrimination against any person as opposed to a qualified person as under the ADA appears to be broader in scope than the ADA and differs from it in important material respects. According to the court, the FEHA, unlike the ADA, affords plaintiffs greater protections by removing the burden of proving capacity to perform as an element of a prima facie case. Practical Lessons for Employers. In reasonable accommodation cases, thorough documentation can help the employer successfully defend charges of discrimination. The law requires reasonable efforts to accommodate an employee s disability. Jackson Lewis attorneys can help define reasonable and perform an undue burden analysis of management efforts and employee requests. Vision-Impaired Drivers Lose Suit Over Delivery Job Rejections In another disability discrimination case involving and contrasting the anti-discrimination provisions of the FEHA and ADA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that United Parcel Service s use of its vision protocol to bar job applicants with impaired vision from jobs driving delivery trucks did not amount to disability discrimination under the FEHA. According to the court, even though the applicants were disabled within the meaning of the FEHA because they had monocular vision (resulting in decreased peripheral vision and impaired depth perception), UPS was justified in refusing to hire them under the FEHA s safety-of-others defense. Employing the defense, UPS showed that the applicants failure to meet its protocol a minimum level of central vision in both eyes would endanger the health and safety of others to a greater extent than if an individual without a disability performed the job [EEOC et al. v. UPS, 9th Cir. Nos , and (09/15/05)]. Emphasis Is on Differences Between FEHA and ADA. A threshold question in the case was whether the applicants qualifying medical conditions limited a major life activity so as to render them physically disabled under state and federal law. The Ninth Circuit noted that the California legislature has determined that the definition of physical disability requires a limitation upon a major life activity, but does not require, as does the ADA, a substantial limitation. The court said the distinction is intended to result in broader coverage under the FEHA than under the ADA. It added that, under California law, whether a condition limits a major life activity is to be determined without respect to any mitigating measures, unless the mitigating measure itself limits a major life activity, regardless of federal law under the ADA. Further, under California, working is a major life activity. Accordingly, the court held that some of the plaintiffs in the case were limited in the major life activity of seeing, while others were limited in the major life activity of working. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NEWS & VIEWS Washington and Oregon Minimum Wages to Increase in 2006 Effective January 1, 2006, Washington s minimum wage increases by 28 cents to $7.63 an hour. Initiative 688, approved by Washington voters in 1998, requires the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) to recalculate the state s minimum wage each September. The DLI does so based on changes in the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) during the 12-month period ending each August 31. The CPI-W, which measures average price changes in such market basket goods and 6 services as food and shelter, increased 3.8% during the 12-month period ending last August 31, as compared to a 2.6% increase during the same period in In 2005, Washington had the highest state minimum wage in the country. The next highest states are Oregon ($7.25), Alaska ($7.15) and Connecticut ($7.10). In 2006, Washington is again expected to have the nation s highest minimum wage ($7.63), followed by Oregon at $7.50. Between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2006, the Washington minimum wage has increased from $5.70 to $7.63 per hour, with the largest annual increase (80 cents) occurring January 1, 2000.

7 Alaska s Minimum Salary Requirement for Exemptions Differs from the FLSA Alaska wage and hour regulations define the administrative and executive exemptions from overtime compensation requirements to include either a duties test, or alternatively, a minimum salary requirement tied to the minimum wage. When Alaska s minimum wage provision was increased to $7.15 per hour, with future increases indexed to inflation, this caused unintended consequences. Under current state law, the minimum salary requirement is $29,744 annually or $572 per week (equivalent to two times minimum wage). Employers should be aware that this is significantly more than the $455 per week minimum salary requirement under the federal FLSA, and that the state law is controlling. Court Rules That Overtime Obligation Restricted to In-State Employment The Washington State Court of Appeals has ruled that the state s minimum wage law applies only to hours worked within the state. Therefore, the law does not entitle a worker to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of the weekly statutory 40-hour out of state. [Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., Wash. Ct. App.Div.II No II (2005)]. An interstate truck driver worked for Food Express, a California motor carrier in the business of hauling food products and chemicals in California, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The driver averaged 48 hours of driving and loading per week. However, he did not drive or load more than 40 hours in any workweek within Washington. Food Express never paid him anything extra for more than 40 hours of work. He then sued the motor carrier for the excess. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in his favor, and Food Express appealed. Law Was Unambiguous. According to the Washington Court of Appeals, the plain language of the Minimum Wage Act demonstrated that the statute applies only to those hours an employee works within the state. The law (WAC ) provides that the compensation paid truck and bus drivers shall include overtime pay for working within the state of Washington in excess of 40 hours a week. (emphasis added). Accordingly, because the driver never worked more than 40 hours within Washington, Food Express was not liable to him for overtime. Practical Tips for Employers. While this ruling is good news for Washington employers, employers with facilities outside of Washington should realize that this analysis was based on the plain language of the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Accordingly, the analysis in this case is not necessarily applicable to overtime claims brought for work performed in other states. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE In a flurry of activity, Governor Schwarzenegger signed several bills that affect California employers. Highlights of these bills follow. Legislation Changes Direct Wage Deposit and Software Exemption Rules Existing California law provides that an employer can deposit employee wages, including wages to be paid in the future and salary advances, into an account in any bank, savings and loan association, or credit union of the employee s choice in this state, so long as the employee has voluntarily authorized the deposit [CA Labor Code 213]. However, if the worker is discharged or quits, the voluntary authorization for direct deposit terminates and the provisions of existing law relating to the payment of wages upon termination of employment apply. AB 1093 amends the law governing the payment of wages by direct deposit to clarify: 1.that the bank, S&L, or credit union of the employee s choice need only have a place of business located in California (and so need not be headquartered in the state), and 7

8 2.that an employer may pay an employee s final paycheck by direct deposit provided compliance with the law governing the payment of wages at the end of employment. Overtime Exemption for Software Workers AB 1093 changed the law on the overtime exemption for computer software employees to permit salary payments as an alternative to the previous requirement of hourly pay at a specified rate. Computer software employees who meet certain duties requirements need not receive overtime premiums if they are paid at least a specified minimum. Labor Code Section 515.5(a) originally provided a $41 minimum hourly rate but the statute also provides for annual adjustments in that rate based on changes in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. That rate which is determined by the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Statistics and Research has increased each year since Section was adopted in The rate for 2006 is $ AB 1093 changed the law by allowing, as an alternative to the hourly rate of $47.81, paying a salary of at least the annualized full-time equivalent of that rate, in other words, an annual salary in 2006 of at least $99, Even under the salary method, though, the law requires the employee to receive at least the statutory minimum for each hour worked. Of course, all of the other requirements for the exemption must also be met. And expect the hourly minimum to increase next year meaning next year s salary amount will go up as well. Employers Must Remove Complete SS Numbers from Employee Documents Under current law, employers are required to furnish each employee with an accurate itemized paycheck showing, among other things, the name of the employee and the employee s social security number. Recent enactments to Labor Code section 226, which will become effective on January 1, 2008, require an employer to include no more than the last four digits of an employee s social security number or an existing employee identification number on any paycheck provided to an employee. This law clarifies that the employee identification number may not be the employee s social security number. The law is effective immediately. Deadline for Filing Complaints with DFEH Extended Under existing law, a person filing a complaint for an unlawful practice with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) generally is required to file the complaint within one year. AB 1669, which takes effect January 1, 2006, extends the statute of limitations for filing a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to one year after the individual s 18th birthday, if the alleged violation was committed when the individual was under the age of 18. Meal Period Rules Amended for Union Employees in Entertainment Industry As of January 1, 2006, employees in the motion picture and broadcasting industries are exempt from the meal period requirements if they are covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement (AB 1734). Under current law, employers are required to provide unpaid meal periods to employees during work periods of specified duration (i.e., generally an unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes to begin no later than the end of the fifth hour of work). Employers Face New Requirements under the Workplace Violence Safety Act Under existing law, an employer may obtain a temporary restraining order on behalf of employees who are subject to unlawful violence or a threat of violence at the workplace. There are various procedural requirements that must be satisfied as part of this process. New law AB 429 affects employers when a restraining order has been issued, but not served, and the individual who is the subject of the order violated any term of the order. In those circumstances, a law enforcement officer may provide the individual with verbal notice of the order. Once verbal notice is given, the employer must mail an endorsed copy of the restraining order to the individual s mailing address within one day. The new law takes effect January 1,