holiday pay law in california - workers

Holiday Pay Practices: Do You Know Your Legal Requirements?

Holiday pay is an appreciated employee benefit that employers offer to recruit and retain the best employees. In competition with other employers who provide little or no paid holiday time, the employer that offers the most generous holiday pay package will often win the talent war. 

Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Holiday Pay

Here are the answers to the most commonly asked employer questions regarding holiday pay issues in the U.S.

Must an Employer Provide Employees Time off on Holidays?

No. There is no Federal law that requires an employer to provide time off, paid or otherwise, to employees on nationally recognized holidays. Holidays are also typically considered as regular workdays. Employees receive their normal pay for the time they work on a holiday if the employer does not offer holiday pay.

On a state level, legislation, ballot initiatives, or court ruling can create new rules regarding employers and holiday pay.

Must an Employer Accommodate an Employee’s Observance of a Religious Holiday?

An employer is obligated to provide reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees unless it can show that the accommodation would result in undue hardship for its business. To accommodate employees, many employers offer a floating holiday in addition to the regularly scheduled holidays. This allows employees to take time off for religious observances that are not covered by the established holiday schedule.

From everyday items such as groceries, gas, and movie tickets to big-ticket items, we’ll show you how to gain Earnings to power your life! 

Courts addressing the issue of religious accommodation generally agree that unpaid time off can be a reasonable accommodation, as can allowing an employee to use a vacation day to observe a religious holiday.

Generally, employers require that floating holidays be taken in the same year they are granted and do not allow these days to carry over into the next year.

Employees are usually required to give adequate advance notice of their intention to take a floating holiday.

Must Holiday Time off Be Paid?

For non-exempt hourly employees, no. An employer does not have to pay hourly employees for time off on a holiday. An employer is only required to pay hourly employees for the time they actually worked.

For exempt employees (i.e., salaried employees who don’t receive overtime), if they are given the day off, employers must pay their full weekly salary if they work any hours during the week in which the holiday falls. 

May an Employer Attach Conditions to the Receipt of Holiday Pay?

Yes. For example, an employer may require that employees work—or be on an approved leave status—the day before and after a holiday in order to receive holiday pay. An employer may also require an employee to have worked for the company for a specified period of time before becoming eligible for holiday pay.

In addition, an employer may prorate the amount of holiday pay due to a part-time employee. Whatever conditions apply to the receipt of holiday pay should be documented in writing, generally in the employee handbook.

Are Employees Who Work on a Holiday Entitled to Premium Pay?

No. While it is common to pay a premium to an employee who works on a holiday, there is no legal requirement to do so. It’s up to the employer who may view paying employees who work on a holiday as a part of their benefits package.

Must an Employer Provide the Same Holiday Benefits to All Employees?

No, as long as the basis for the different treatment is not discriminatory. For example, based on a protected classification, such as age, race, and so forth. For instance, an employer can provide holiday pay only to full-time and not to part-time employees, or to the office employees and not to employees who work in the field.

What If a Holiday Falls on an Employee’s Day off or When the Business Is Closed?

While not required by law, many employers give an employee the option of taking off another day if a holiday falls on the employee’s day off. Similarly, many employers observe a holiday on the preceding Friday or the following Monday if a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday and the employer is closed on weekends.

What If an Employee Works a Compressed Workweek (e.g., Four 10-Hour Days a Week)?

As with employees who work a standard workweek, there is no requirement that an employer provides an employee with a compressed work week with paid or unpaid time off on a holiday. Employers who utilize a compressed workweek have generally taken one of three approaches to eligibility for holiday pay.

  • Some employers pay only for holidays occurring on the employee’s regularly scheduled workday.
  • Some employers allow the employee to take a substitute holiday on a day when they would otherwise have been required to work if the holiday falls on a day the employee is not scheduled to work.
  • Some employers prefer to give employees who work a compressed workweek (at least four days a week) pay for the holiday, even if the employee is not scheduled to work that day. This gives the employees an extra day of pay.

It’s worth noting that as long as the employer follows its own written policy consistently, any approach selected by an employer is acceptable.

Overall the best practice is communication, communication, communication. Holiday time off can be a touchy subject and addressing it with plenty of time to resolve any conflicts will help keep everyone happy this holiday season.

JLG Lawyers is a Glendale, California based law firm specializing in employment law, bankruptcy, estate planning, and litigation.

workplace injury experts JLG Lawyers, Glendale California

Top three retail workplace injuries with highest payouts before employer liability.

November 19, 2019

Injuries in the workplace are a costly problem for retailers. The costliest worker’s compensation claims highlight a growing trend that isn’t improving year over year.

Injuries to retail workers cause employees to miss an average of 24 days from work, according to claims data analyzed by AmTrust Financial Services, which analyzed more than 20,000 workers’ compensation insurance claims from the company’s retail clients with loss payments from 2016 to 2018. The AmTrust Retail Risk Report found that the top three injuries with highest average payout are:

•    Fall or slip from ladder or scaffolding: $21,000;
•    Strain or injury by repetitive motion: $14,000; and
•    Motor vehicle collision with another vehicle: $13,900.

The report also found that among the top 10 injuries, 23% of claims payments were associated with lifting, and that the average loss paid is greater for men ($11,641) than women ($7,030). The most hazardous retail classes sectors are meat, fish, or poultry retail; hardware; automobile parts; and barbershop or hair salon.

“Analyzing three-years of data gave us new insights into why people in retail miss work, what kind of injuries are the worst or most expensive for employers, and how long it takes for an employee to return to work,” said a top AmTrust executive. “It reinforced our belief that training – in both operations and safety — is essential in the retail sector, especially for younger workers where we tend to see more workers’ compensation claims. Lost time is detrimental to both the injured employee and the employer. This report provides visibility into retail risk and insight into how to decrease the occurrence and severity of these costly situations.”

In addition to the painful expense from missed days and workers comp claims, employers open themselves to a multitude of different potential claims. The majority of injuries would have been prevented with better employer oversight, training, and policies. The lurking hidden cost of lawsuits is waiting to surprise employers at any time.

If you have been injured on the job and think you may have a claim, contact us today at 818-630-7280 or email info@jlglawyers.com.

JLG Lawyers is a Glendale, California based law firm specializing in wrongful termination.

Los Angeles Employment Law Attorneys

California Court Clarifies the Monetary Amount for Meal Period, Rest Break, and Recovery Periods, and Affirms an Employer’s Neutral Rounding Policy

November 13, 2019

On October 9, 2019, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a decision clarifying the rate of pay at which an employer must pay meal period, rest break, and recovery period premiums. More specifically, the appellate court answered the question: what does the “regular rate of compensation” in Labor Code Section 226.7(c) actually mean? In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, a 2-1 majority of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding that in paying meal period and rest break premiums, the regular rate of compensation is equal to one hour of the employee’s base hourly wage and is not synonymous with the “regular rate of pay” used to calculate overtime payments. This clarification is important to every employer in California.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 226.7(c), if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period, rest break, or recovery period in accordance with state law, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided. For years, plaintiff attorneys have been arguing that the regular rate of compensation in Labor Code Section 226.7 really means the regular rate of pay used to calculate an employee’s overtime rate – presumably, because the regular rate of pay will be higher in certain circumstances. Indeed, the regular rate of pay in Labor Code Section 510(a) is an employee’s base rate of compensation plus any adjustments to that rate arising from additional compensation the employee receives, which would include such items as shift differentials, bonuses, and commissions. Thus, unlike an employee’s base hourly rate of compensation, the regular rate of pay may change each pay period. If an employer were required to pay meal period, rest break, and recovery period premiums at the regular rate of pay, it would likely cause an administrative nightmare for payroll departments each pay period. An adjustment would have to be issued with any payment of a monthly, quarterly, or annual bonus because each of those payments would need to be included in the regular rate, and thus would increase the value of the meal or rest period premium. But, thanks to the Ferra court’s thorough analysis of the statutes and the legislative history, employers can rest assured that premium payments are paid at the employee’s base regular rate of compensation.

In rejecting Ferra’s argument that Labor Code Section 226.7’s regular rate of compensation is synonymous with Labor Code Section 510’s regular rate of pay, the Ferra court reasoned that the Legislature made a conscious decision to use two different, specific terms in two different statutory provisions enacted in the same year (and also in two different portions of the wage orders that were revised at the same time). Indeed, had the Legislature intended the terms “compensation” and “pay” to have the same meaning, the Legislature could have simply used the same term. Furthermore, the court looked to legislative history to conclude that equating “regular rate of pay” and “regular rate of compensation” would “elide the difference between requiring an employer to pay overtime, which pays the employee for extra work, and requiring an employer to pay a premium for missed meal and rest hour periods, which compensates an employee for the loss of a benefit. Requiring employers to compensate employees with a full extra hour at their base hourly rate for working through a 30-minute meal period, or for working through a 10-minute rest break, provides a premium that favors the protection of employees.” While the Ferra court agreed with the dissent that the Labor Code should be “construed in favor of protecting employees,” it held that paying employees a full extra hour at their base hourly rate for missing a meal or rest period is sufficient protection.

The Ferra court also unanimously upheld the trial court’s summary judgment order in favor of the employer and its neutral rounding system. This decision is another example of favorable case law holding that even where the net effect of a seemingly evenhanded rounding policy is slightly to reduce the overall compensation of the group of employees subject to the rounding, small statistical differences do not qualify as systematically under compensating employees as necessary to cause a rounding system to become unlawful. Thus, even though Ferra does not establish a bright-line rounding rule, it is a step toward a de facto standard that rounding to the nearest increment (e.g., the nearest tenth or quarter hour) is lawful. In sum, the Ferra court reasoned that neutral rounding contemplates the possibility that in any given time period, some employees will be overcompensated and some will be under compensated, averaging out in the long run. A rounding policy does not have to overcompensate employees to be fair and neutral, and a system can be fair and neutral even where a small majority is under compensated.

Going forward, California employers can breathe a small sigh of relief, and pay meal period, rest period, and recovery period premiums at the employee’s base hourly rate, rather than at the more administratively-complex regular rate of pay.  Employers should therefore review their premium payment practices to ensure compliance and should consult with legal counsel concerning best practices for premium payments and time rounding policies.

For more information on California Employment Law or if you have been a victim of lack of compliance by an employer contact us at info@jlglawyers.com or 818-630-9422.