A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal has basically banned unions from picketing on business property within California. In its opinion the court invalidated two California laws designed to protect union demonstrations on business property.  The reviewing court ordered the trial court to grant an injunction restraining the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (“the Union”) from picketing in front of a Sacramento warehouse store owned by Ralphs Grocery Co. (“Ralphs”). Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 8, No. C060413 (Cal. Ct. App. July 19, 2010).

Facts: The dispute arose when several members of the Union picketed in front of Food Co., a subsidiary of Ralphs, for being a nonunion store. Ralphs sued for trespass and sought to enjoin the unauthorized picketing after an unsuccessful attempt to require the Union to follow Food Co.’s rules for speech on the property. The rules prohibited, in part, the distribution of literature, physical contact with any person, display of signs larger than two feet by three feet, and speech within 20 feet of the store entrance. Ralphs alleged that the Union didn’t follow the rules ; specifically, that the Union  was handing out flyers and enlisting supporters within five feet of the entrance.

In bringing suit, Ralphs challenged the constitutionality of California’s Moscone Act, which deprived state courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions against “peaceful picketing or patrolling” involving any labor dispute. Ralph’s lawsuit also challenged California’s Labor Code section 1131.8, which imposed severe restrictions on a property owner’s right to obtain injunctive relief against union activities. The trial court ruled that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional because it constituted content based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The trial court, however, upheld the constitutionality of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 in light of a prior appellate decision which held that Labor Code section 1138.1 did not violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Applying Labor Code section 1138.1, the trial court denied Ralphs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Ralphs appealed.

Decision: Three questions of law were at issue on appeal:

1) Is the entrance area of Food Co., where the picketing was taking place, a public or private forum? If public, the California Constitution required that any time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech be reasonable. The court found that Food Co.’s entrance area was not a public forum, so the company was free to restrict the type of speech allowed at its entrance.

2) Is California’s Moscone Act, which limited the ability of courts to issue injunctions in labor relations cases, constitutional? The constitutionality of the Moscone Act was at issue because the Act’s selective restriction was based on the content of the speech. The court held that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it afforded preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues.

3) Is the requirement of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 that factual showings be made before a court is able to grant an injunction in a labor dispute constitutional (i.e., that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and that substantial and irreparable injury to the property would result)? The court found that this Labor Code section was unconstitutional for the same reasons as that of the Moscone Act.

Stay Tuned: Although the decision may be subject to further appeal, this case provides important guidance for employers dealing with the issue of regulating union activity on business property. The court’s ruling is seen as a major victory for California retailers who have endured loss of business and damage to their image resulting from union picketing on their properties. A wide spectrum of businesses ranging from hospitals to retail chain stores are expected to be impacted by this decision. Employers need to have a firm grasp of what constitutes public and private forums under California law and be able to determine the types of content neutral restrictions that are enforceable on their premises.

Apparently, there is a new set of class action cases that have been filed recently against several large employers for alleged “seating” violations under the California Labor Code (“Labor Code”). In these cases, plaintiffs seek to enforce Section 14 of the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, which until recently was a largely unnoticed provision of the Order that requires employers to provide seating for their employees under certain circumstances. While past case law gave employers some comfort, a new Northern District of California decision, Curie-White v. Blockbuster, has expanded damages available to plaintiffs in such cases, and will likely lead to further claims being filed.

Section 14 of IWC Wage Order 7 (entitled “Seats”), which is typical of several other industry specific wage orders, requires that (a) all workers shall be provided with suitable seating when the nature of the work reasonably permits it; and (b) when the nature of the work requires standing, the employer must provide reasonable seating in proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.  However, Section 14 does not contain its own penalty provision and does not address seating claims.

The new class action claims assert that employers who fail to comply with Wage Order seating requirements violate Section 1198 of the Labor Code, which makes it illegal to employ an employee under conditions that are prohibited by an IWC Wage Order.  These new seating claims have been brought under the Private Attorneys General Action of 2004 (“PAGA”), which allows recovery for violations of all provisions of the Labor Code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided.  PAGA penalties consist of $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the first violation, and $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.

Prior to the decision in Curie-White v. Blockbuster, the only court opinion to address a seating claim was in Hamilton v. SF Hilton and the decision there weighed heavily in favor of the employer.   However, In Curie-White, the court significantly undermined several of the key defenses that had succeeded in the Hamilton case.  Most significantly, the court ruled that plaintiffs may seek civil penalties under PAGA because the penalty provision of the Wage Order “does not provide a penalty for the violation…specifically a failure to provide seats for employees.”

Given the conflict between the Hamilton and Curie-White decisions, it is likely that the issue will continue to be litigated in the more recent seating claims cases.  The ultimate resolution in those cases will likely determine whether the these seating claims form a new fad in class action litigation.

WHAT TO DO:

• Document any efforts that have been made to determine whether seats are necessary;

• Review and analyze current job descriptions and customer service standards to determine whether they clearly identify jobs where continual mobility and standing are essential functions of the job, and incorporate those standards into the job descriptions;

• Provide an adequate number of suitable seats in a nearby break room and allow employees to use the seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.

Here is a link to Wage Order 7, which contains the relevant Seating Requirements at Section 14

Is there a new wave of Class Action cases coming in California?

This post provides an update for an earlier post on the use of incentives in wellness programs. The EEOC’s final rules interpreting Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) had been anticipated in November, but the EEOC now intends to issue a final rule on  this month, according to its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda (pdf) released online yesterday.

Title II of GINA, which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment, took effect on November 21, 2009. The regulation applies to employers with more than 15 employees. Under Title II it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts acquisition of genetic information by employers and other entities covered by Title II, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information.

The EEOC enforces Title II of GINA (dealing with genetic discrimination in employment). The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury have responsibility for issuing regulations for Title I of GINA, which addresses the use of genetic information in health insurance.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced the release of a new mandatory supplement to the “EEO Is The Law” poster, which is a required posting for private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions and labor organizations. The new supplement is available for download here.

The new poster supplement reflects updated federal employment discrimination law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008. It also contains a new section about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”), effective November 21, 2009, along with updated EEOC contact information. There are also revisions affecting employers holding federal contracts or subcontracts, supplementing the “EEO Is The Law” poster promulgated by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) in August 2008. These revisions include a change to the Individuals with Disabilities section, a change to the Vietnam Era, Special Disabled Veterans section, a new section regarding Retaliation, and an update to the OFCCP contact information.

Employers may comply with the new requirement by downloading the supplement and posting it alongside their September 2002 EEOC poster.

The following is a guest post by Justin Nassiri, Stanford MBA Grad and Internet Start-Up entrepreneur.  He makes some great points. Mr. Nassiri’s internet company will be launching in a few days, you can follow it here, and see Mr. Nassiri’s profile here:

If you’re anything like me, the thought of posting anything on Twitter for the world to see is as unappealing as it comes. However, I’ve come to view Twitter as the best free marketing tool available to any company of any size. So for those of you still on the fence, here’s a quick run down on why you should join Twitter and how you can use it.

Twitter is great for 3 things:
(1) hearing what your customers are saying about you and your competitors,
(2) learning about trending topics in your industry,
(3) providing information in a Facebook newsfeed-esque way in a (potentially more) professional manner than FB

For both (1) and (2) very little is required:

• Download “TweetDeck” – it will allow you to set up searches for up to 12 categories (examples: BlueTree, Design, Outsourced Help, 99Designs)
• Any time anyone (regardless of whether you know them) mentions these words on twitter, they will show up in individual search feeds
• You can respond to them privately (if they are “following you”) or publicly
• You don’t HAVE to be that active on Twitter to assist with (1) or (2), but there is a certain amount of credibility you can develop by growing a following of users (more about this below)

For (3) you will need to gain “followers”, which are similar to Facebook friends but are not necessarily people you know. Here’s a few tips on how to get started:

• When you join Twitter it’ll pull info from your address book that’ll get you started. As you search around you can start following more people you know, who will follow you back (out of common courtesy)
• The best way to gain “followers” is by posting useful information on Twitter (people are more likely to “Retweet” what you say, and thus boost your exposure, if you share an interesting article on a relevant topic rather than if you Tweet what you had for lunch)
• Since Twitter allows a max of 140 characters, people use URL shortening websites to save space. I use www.shorturl.com to create a unique url. (An advantage here is that most sites like this have URL counters so you can track how many people view the unique URL you post – this is a good way to see what type of information your followers ReTweet and find interesting)

There’s a lot of different analysis of the most effective way to gain followers…you’d be surprised at how much research goes into this. In general, I’d recommend:

• Tweet 3 times a day at different times
• Websites like www.twuffer.com are great, as you can queue tweets to go out at certain times. The best advice I’ve gotten here is to spend about an hour on Monday morning queueing up Tweets for the rest of the week, and then don’t worry about it after that.
• Put your best/most important Tweets between 11am-1pm ( The number of RTs at this time are the highest, probably since people are checking at lunch)
• The highest ReTweet topics I see are Top 10 style topics on increasing your efficiency, best online marketing practices, best [insert entrepreneur topic] practices, etc

It may not fit your ideal for personal privacy or socializing, but when it comes to online marketing you’re missing a big opportunity if you don’t use it.

Great points, thanks for the information Justin.