Workforce Bulletin

Once again, we rang in the new year with a great many state and local minimum wage increases.

This year, 23 states—and several counties and cities—will increase their minimum wages and, where applicable, tipped minimum wage. Most of these increases went into effect on January 1, 2025.

Employers with minimum wage (and tipped minimum wage) workers should discuss newly implemented increases with counsel to ensure their compensation practices comply across all relevant jurisdictions.

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) U.S. 639 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5^th 1104, when faced with employee arbitration agreements, California trial courts have regularly compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims first, while staying their representative, non-individual PAGA claims.

In an attempt to avoid arbitrating the named plaintiffs’ individual PAGA claims – and knowing that the representative, non-individual claims would be dismissed if the employers prevailed in an individual arbitration – more than a few plaintiff’s counsel have tried to circumvent Adolph by asserting that their clients were not bringing individual claims at all, but were only bringing claims on behalf of others. 

In response, employers have argued that, based on the clear statutory language, every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA action such that those individual claims have to be arbitrated first.

In what many would consider to be an employer-friendly decision, more than a decade ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified many of the general requirements for meal and rest periods under California law. But in 2021, the California Supreme Court issued employee-friendly decisions in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC and Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.  Since these latter decisions have seemingly spurred an increased number of class and PAGA actions alleging meal and rest period violations, it makes sense to revisit the requirements. 

California wage-hour law is governed in large part by 18 different wage orders that apply to different industries and occupations.  “The number of wage orders, and their internal variations, reflects the reality that differing aspects of work in differing industries may call for different kinds of regulation,” as the California Supreme Court explained in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.  Indeed, as the Court explained in Brinker, “[w]hat will suffice [for meal and rest breaks] may vary from industry to industry.”

With that in mind, this tip is not a one-size-fits-all guide but instead discusses California’s meal and rest period requirements generally.

The rise of workplace wearable technology has opened new possibilities for employee efficiencies, safety, and health monitoring. Collecting health-related workplace data, however, may subject employers to liability under nondiscrimination laws.

Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a fact sheet addressing potential concerns and pitfalls employers may run into when gathering and making employment related decisions based on health-related information.

Understanding Workplace Wearables

Wearable technologies, or “wearables,” are digital devices worn on the body that can track movement, collect biometric data, and monitor location. Employers have implemented these tools for a multitude of reasons, including tracking and predicting how long certain tasks take employees to promote efficiency. Wearables may also be programmed to recognize signs of fatigue, like head or body slumps, and notice improper form when lifting, which can be critical for workplace health and safety.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we asked a few of our labor and employment attorneys to recap the most significant challenges their clients faced in 2024.

It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring.

In its first merits decision this term, the Supreme Court provided a straightforward application of textualism to demonstrate that in cases challenging administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress’s delegation of authority to the agency must be clear. Only in this case, Congress got it right. In future challenges to agency action, counsel and affected parties should take into account the ability of Congress to limit those challenges.

A Unanimous SCOTUS Analysis

As we summarized previously, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (per Jackson, J.) held in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas that the revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155 by the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”) is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the agency’s purview pursuant to authority that is delegated by Congress. In this case, the Secretary revoked a visa based on a sham-marriage determination, relying on the language of Section 1155 that grants broad authority to the Secretary to revoke an approved visa petition at any time, for “what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” The revocation was challenged through the agency and then federal courts. At each turn, the agency’s determination was upheld, with the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit both holding that, in the context of enacted legislation outlining the agency’s powers, courts are precluded from reviewing the Secretary’s decision.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists look back on the top trade secrets and non-compete stories of the year:

This year has been a rollercoaster for trade secrets and non-compete law. We’ve seen major legal battles at both the federal and state levels impacting employers across the nation.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Daniel R. Levy, Katherine G. Rigby, A. Millie Warner, and Erik W. Weibust recap 2024’s most significant updates, including the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete ban, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel memo, state-level trends, and much more.

Over the past three decades, California voters have reliably approved proposals to increase the statewide minimum wage. Until now.

In November,  by a slim margin of 50.7% to 49.3%, voters surprised many by rejecting Proposition 32, which would have increased minimum wages for most non-exempt employees in the state.

Under Proposition 32, the hourly minimum wage for non-exempt employees working for employers with 26 or more employees would have immediately increased from $16 to $17 for the remainder of 2024, with an additional increase to $18 per hour on January 1, 2025. Those working for employers with 25 or fewer employees would have seen an increase the hourly minimum wage from $16 to $17 on January 1, 2025.

The rejection of Proposition 32 in a state that has historically supported minimum wage increases could signal a shift in the labor landscape. It may reflect concerns about rising costs and fears that families and businesses are being priced out of the Golden State. And the vote could be a bellwether for the nation as California is well known as a trendsetting state, especially on wage-and-hour issues.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're highlighting several last-minute changes from federal agencies before the Trump administration takes office.

These changes include the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent ban on captive audience meetings, a federal judge's decision to vacate the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) overtime rule, and the return of Wage and Hour Division opinion letters.

On November 15, 2024, a district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a significant, albeit somewhat unsurprising, opinion in Texas v. Department of Labor, vacating the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2024 Final Overtime Rule (“Final Rule”), which, as we previously reported (here and here), had raised the minimum salary threshold on July 1, 2024, and was set to further increase the minimum salary threshold on January 1, 2025, for the executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions, and the highly compensated employee (“HCE”) exemption.

As a refresher, the Final Rule featured three components: (1) an increase to $844 per week (or $43,888 per year) for the EAP exemptions and to $132,964 for the HCE exemption that took effect on July 1, 2024; (2) a further increase to $1,128 per week (or $58,656 per year) for the EAP exemptions and to $151,164 for the HCE exemption on January 1, 2025; and (3) automatic increases every three years, beginning July 1, 2027.

The DOL previously issued a similar overtime final rule in 2019 that increased the minimum salary threshold from $455 per week to $684 per week. Unlike the 2024 Final Rule, the 2019 rule withstood legal challenge, and was upheld this past September by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.