DOCSLIB.ORG

2019-Cal-Peculiarities.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2019-Cal-Peculiarities.Pdf Cal-Peculiarities 2019 | HOW CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW IS DIFFERENT SEYFARTH SHAW LLP About Our Cover Yes, we know: California is a contiguous part of the North American continent. Yet seventeenth-century mapmakers saw it otherwise. When they outlined the western contours of our region, they extended the Gulf of California far north, to make California appear as a yam-shaped island in the Pacific Ocean. If such maps are now historical oddities, they still reflect the persistent view that California is a world apart. Carey McWilliams explored this theme in his 1946 classic, Southern California: An Island on the Land. He argued that Southern California is, metaphorically, an island in profound cultural ways. Much the same is true of California writ large when it comes to labor and employment law. So while early maps were cartographically incorrect, their symbolism remains powerful. Any picture of California as an island apart is especially vivid as of 2019. While the executive branch of our national government remains generally more friendly toward business, every branch of California’s government is extraordinarily solicitous to the interests of employees, labor unions, and the plaintiffs’ bar. So much for the island. What about the star and the grizzly bear? Discerning readers will recall that these figures adorn our state flag, where they appear above the logo “California Republic.” All these features harken back to 1846, when American settlers in Mexican Alta California staged the Bear Flag Revolt to declare a republic independent from Mexico. (The star and logo pay homage to the Lone Star Republic of Texas, which broke free of Mexico in 1836.) The California rebels got lucky: the Mexican-American War soon intervened to dislodge the California territory from Mexican control. California, in 1850, became our thirty-first state. The legacy of the Bear Flag Revolt continues today: fiercely independent state politicians—especially since the 2016 election—have proclaimed California’s right to chart its own course on such vital matters as the environment, health care, immigration, and the right to use marijuana. And perhaps nowhere is Californian independence more prominent than in the area of employment law. Federal labor law hit high tide in the 1930s, with the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The high tide returned in the 1960s—bringing us the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act—and returned yet again in the 1990s, bringing us the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. In the Golden State, meanwhile, the waves of employment regulation have risen ever higher, even while federal regulations have ebbed. This book highlights differences between federal and California law in key areas of interest to employers that operate both in California and in the rest of America. In virtually every case, the California version more heavily favors employees, plaintiffs, and labor unions, at the expense of business. The point, of course, is that companies used to doing business elsewhere can find California employment law a real bear. Hence our cover. Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2019 Cal-Peculiarities | i Authors’ Note At annual intervals since the turn of this century, we’ve cataloged how California law deviates from prevailing American labor and employment law. The result—this steadily growing volume—summarizes legislative, judicial, and regulatory developments that have made California a uniquely challenging environment for private employers. (We do not address special challenges facing public employers or government contractors.) We highlight these California peculiarities to help corporate counsel and human resources professionals avoid legal pitfalls, without treating what is provided here as the final word (a point emphasized in the disclaimer that follows). This 2019 edition contains contributions from many Seyfarth lawyers, all members or friends of our California Workplace Solutions Group: Rachel Abanonu, Michael Afar, Nabeel Ahmad, Pantea Ahmadi, Brian Ashe, Nicole Baarts, Jeff Berman, Candace Bertoldi, Holger Besch, Dan Birnbaum, Jonathan Brophy, Bob Buch, Debbie Caplan, Mehga Charalambides, Caitlyn Crisp, Chris Crosman, Justin Curley, Catherine Dacre, Phillip Ebsworth, Chantelle Egan, Pam Devata, Tim Fisher, Lindsay Fitch, Kerry Friedrichs, Amanda Fry, Nick Geannacopulos, Rachel Gradstein, Mattt Graffigna, Jaclyn Gross, Carrie Grove, Minal Haymond, Josh Henderson, Christine Hendrickson, Ari Hersher, Gaye Hertan, Eric Hill, Timothy Hix, Timothy Hoppe, Dana Howells, Christopher Im, Jessica Jensen, Gregory Kantor, Michael Kopp, Namrata Kotwani, Kristina Launey, Lara Levine, Paul Leaf, Patty Lee, Lauren Leibovitch, Elizabeth Levy, Leo Li, Eric Lloyd, Brian Long, Allison Loomis, Zaher Lopez, Aaron Lubeley, Laura Maechtlen, Elizabeth MacGregor, Eric May, Ryan McCoy, Chelsea Mesa, Robert Milligan, Jennifer Mora, Ilana Morady, Jennifer Murikami, Jennifer Nunez, Meagan O’Dell, Angelo Paparelli, Beth Pelliconi, Kristen Peters, Dana Peterson, Jamie Pollaci, Jill Porcaro, Monica Rodriguez, David Rosenberg, Eric Ruehe, Timothy Rusche, Michelle Scannell, Joshua Salinas, Sam Schwartz-Fenwick, Emily Schroeder, Josh Seidman, Tatyana Shmygol, Joan Smiles, Jared Speier, Michael Stevens, Pritee Thakarsey, Tiffany Tran, Christopher Truxler, Coby Turner, Annette Tyman, Ryan Tzeng, Parnian Vafaeenia, Pamela Vartabedian, Bethany Vasquez, Jinouth Vasquez Santos, Myra Villamor, Olivia Wada, Michael Wahlander, Elisabeth Watson, Geoffrey Westbrook, Shireen Wetmore, Daniel Whang, Mason Winters, Simon Yang, Julie Yap, Fontaine Yuk, and Ann Marie Zaletel. To keep up with the latest peculiarities of California employment law, please subscribe to Seyfarth’s award- winning California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog: www.calpeculiarities.com/subscribe. David Kadue and Colleen Regan, Co-Editors in Chief Important Disclaimer We have been representative, not exhaustive, in cataloging California peculiarities. This book is general commentary, not legal advice. We disclaim liability as to anything done or omitted in reliance on this publication. Readers should refrain from acting on any discussion in this publication without obtaining specific advice applying current law to particular circumstances. Thus, while we aim to provide authoritative information, this book is not legal advice. (From A Declaration of Principles adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations.) Legal Notice Copyright © 2019. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for private study or research permitted under copyright law, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted without the prior written permission of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2019 Cal-Peculiarities | ii Table of Contents About Our Cover ....................................................................................................................... i Authors’ Note ................................................................................................................................................... ii Important Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................ ii Legal Notice ..................................................................................................................................................... ii Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 “Bounty Hunter” or “Sue Your Boss” Lawsuits ....................................................................................................3 Leaves .................................................................................................................................................................4 Employee Privacy—Protected Activities and Confidential Information ...............................................................4 Arbitration Agreements ........................................................................................................................................5 Litigation Issues ...................................................................................................................................................5 Immigrant Workers ..............................................................................................................................................6 Discrimination ......................................................................................................................................................7 Disability Discrimination ......................................................................................................................................7 Age Discrimination ..............................................................................................................................................7 Harassment .........................................................................................................................................................7 National Origin Discrimination .............................................................................................................................8
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Labor and Employment Litigation Update Friday, November 6, 2020
    Labor and Employment Litigation Update Friday, November 6, 2020 Brian P. Walter, Partner, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore DISCLAIMER This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. The League of California Cities® does not review these materials for content and has no view one way or another on the analysis contained in the materials. Copyright © 2020, League of California Cities®. All rights reserved. This paper, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission from the League of California Cities. For further information, contact the League of California Cities at 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone: (916) 658-8200. League of California Cities 2020 City Attorneys’ Department Virtual Conference Labor and Employment Litigation Update Brian P. Walter LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 6033 West Century Blvd., Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 981-2000 Facsimile: (310) 337-0837 Labor and Employment Litigation Update Brian P. Walter, Partner, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT General Information about Discrimination and Harassment can be found in the Municipal Law Handbook, Chapter 4, “Personnel,” Section VIII, “Antidiscrimination Laws.” http://onlaw.ceb.com/onlaw/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=OnLAW:CEB Employee Who Was Terminated Because of a Mistaken Belief He Was Unable to Work Need Not Prove Employer Had a Discriminatory Intent To Prove Disability Discrimination Glynn v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Allergan) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 47 John Glynn worked for Allergan as a pharmaceutical sales representative.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Employment Law for California Workers Marci Seville Golden Gate University School of Law, [email protected]
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Women’s Employment Rights Clinic Centers & Programs 5-1997 Know Your Rights: A Guide to Employment Law for California Workers Marci Seville Golden Gate University School of Law, [email protected] Maria Blanco Whitney Gabriel Anne Yen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/werc Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Seville, Marci; Blanco, Maria; Gabriel, Whitney; and Yen, Anne, "Know Your Rights: A Guide to Employment Law for California Workers" (1997). Women’s Employment Rights Clinic. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/werc/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Centers & Programs at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Women’s Employment Rights Clinic by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Know Your Rights A Guide to Employment Law for California Workers Women's Employment Rights Clinic Golden Gate University School of Law May 1997 Editors: Maria Blanco, Whitney Gabriel, Marci Seville, and Anne Yen I I Know Your Rights A Guide to Employment Law for California Workers Women's Employment Rights Clinic Golden Gate University School of Law May 1997 Editors: Maria Blanco, Whitney Gabriel, Marci Seville, and Anne Yen ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Women's Employment Rights Clinic faculty, students, and staff who contributed their work to this handbook: Marci Seville, Director
    [Show full text]
  • Software Captures Tax Deductions for Energy-Efficient Building Design
    “At alliantgroup, we use the same modeling software as the IRS uses to calculate energy tax savings to ensure every claim we make is done in line with standard IRS procedure,” said Linda McCluskey, alliantgroup managing director of energy credits and incentives. “The development of epFace further ensures we are providing the most accurate and specific calculations possible in identifying and optimizing tax deductions for our clients.” Software Captures Tax Deductions for Energy-Efficient Building Design Enables clients to claim tax deductions offered through Section 179D By alliantgroup, LP JUNE 17, 2015 alliantgroup has announced the release of a new proprietary software interface, epFace, which allows it to optimize modeling calculations for energy-efficiency-based tax deductions. The company works with firms to help them claim tax deductions for their design work on government-owned buildings that meet energy-efficient standards under the law. The epFace software allows for accurate and specific calculations while capturing the federal tax deduction established in Section 179D, The Energy-Efficient Commercial Building Deduction. “alliantgroup is the only tax consultant out there using this kind of software to capture tax deductions based on energy efficiency,” said Rizwan Virani, alliantgroup senior managing director. “This sort of state-of-the-art modeling technology is typically reserved for basic or academic research. However, our investment has already started to positively impact business results for our clients.” The epFace interface works hand-in-hand with EnergyPlus, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) open-source modeling software used to simulate energy and water usage in buildings. “We created an easy-to-learn, easy-to-teach interface for the EnergyPlus modeling program,” said Virani.
    [Show full text]
  • Alliantgroup Joins ACT-IAC, the Premier Public- Private Partnership in the Government Technology Community
    alliantgroup Joins ACT-IAC, The Premier Public- Private Partnership in the Government Technology Community Houston, TX [Oct. 06, 2017] alliantgroup, the nation’s public and private sectors. We cannot wait to collaborate foremost provider of specialty tax services, has joined the with ACT-IAC members to help government agencies achieve American Council for Technology and Industry Advisory their mission.” Council (ACT-IAC) as a Corporate Member. “We’re delighted to welcome alliantgroup as a new member. ACT-IAC is a volunteer association formed on the idea that collaboration with industry and government can create a more alliantgroup is a leading tax consultancy that assists industry effective and efficient government through the application of organizations, U.S. businesses and their CPA advisors in technology. With the support of our members, we hope that properly identifying and correctly claiming federal and state we can continue to pursue this mission. We look forward to tax incentives. To date, the firm has helped 12,000 American alliantgroup supporting this goal,” said Ken Allen, Executive companies claim more than $6 billion in tax incentives. Director, ACT-IAC. alliantgroup is headquartered in Houston and has offices ACT-IAC is a non-profit educational and training organization nationwide, including in New York, Chicago, Indianapolis, established to improve government through the effective Boston, Irvine, Sacramento, Orlando and Washington, D.C. and innovative application of technology. The organization For more information on alliantgroup and our tax consulting is the premier public-private partnership in the government services, please contact Jennifer Groff at (713) 552-5657 technology community and provides a trusted forum where or email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Salaries by Industry Healthcare
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Post-Graduation Industry Report Undergraduate Class of 2018 Communications Legal Services Advertising/Public Relations | Media/Entertainment | Publishing/Printing Manufacturing Consulting Aerospace | Automotive | Biomedical Products/Pharmaceuticals | Chemicals/Gases | Computer Products - Hardware | Consumer Products | Education Electronics/Robotics Elementary/Secondary Education | Higher Education | Research Labs/Centers Nonprofit - Higher Education Cultural Institutions/Arts and Cultural Affairs | Public Interest/Advocacy | Financial Services Social Services Diversified Financial Services (including commercial/retail banking) | Hedge Real Estate/Construction Fund | Investment Banking / Brokerage | Investment Management/Counsel | Private Equity | Venture Capital Retail/Wholesale Government Technology Federal Government | State Government | U.S. National Laboratories Salaries by Industry Healthcare Community/Public Health Center | For-Profit/Private Health Care Provider | Salaries by Job Function Hospital 2018 POST-GRADUATION INDUSTRY REPORT Communications Median Starting Salary 84 responses $51,350 When They Accepted Their Offer 55 responses 22% 15% 11% 9% 11% 5% 7% 7% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% Aug or Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep or Earlier Later 2017 2018 How They Got Their Offer Industry Breakdown 38 responses 84 responses Publishing/ Applied Directly 21% Printing Penn Contact (Professor, Advisor, etc.) 21% 4% Previous Employer (through OCR) 13% On Campus Recruiting (OCR) 13% Advertising/ 36% Public
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    Case 2:13-cv-00817-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 08/20/13 Page 1 of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FRANK PINDER, NO. CIV. S-13-817 LKK/AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; RICHARD 14 ROGERS; DAVID DERKS and O R D E R DOES 1-50, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff Frank Pinder brings this action for harassment, 18 discrimination, and retaliation against the California Employment 19 Development Department (EDD) and his former supervisors in that 20 California agency. 21 Pending before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss 22 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Defs’ Mot., ECF No. 9. For 23 the reasons provided herein, the court GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, 24 in part, Defendants’ motion. 25 //// 26 //// 1 Case 2:13-cv-00817-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 08/20/13 Page 2 of 34 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background1 3 In January 2010, Plaintiff Frank Pinder was hired by the 4 California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) as a System 5 Software Specialist III Supervisor. He was responsible for 6 supervising approximately 21 employees. 7 The complaint alleges that he is a soft-spoken black man who 8 suffers from mild-to-moderate stuttering, which escalates to more 9 severe stuttering during times of stress and anxiety. He is mostly 10 able to control his stuttering, except during the times when he 11 feels harassed or under duress. 12 During most of his instant employment, Plaintiff’s immediate 13 supervisors included Defendants David Derks and Richard Rogers.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Applies Longer, Three-Year Statute of Limitations To
    ® A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: California Employers Can’t Get a Break: Supreme Court Applies Longer, Three-Year Statute of Limitations to November 2010 Claims for Waiting Time Penalties The California Supreme Court recently By Dominic Messiha and Lauren Howard held in Pineda v. Bank of America that the penalties recoverable under In yet another blow to employers, the California Supreme Court unanimously announced California Labor Code section 203 for in Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. that the penalties recoverable under section 203 of unpaid final wages are subject to a the California Labor Code are subject to a three-year rather than a one-year statute of three-year statute of limitations and limitations. This is true irrespective of whether the employee seeks to recover unpaid not a one-year statute of limitations. wages in addition to waiting time penalties. The impact of this decision is substantial and immediate, in the form Under section 203, if an employer willfully fails to timely pay final wages to an employee of increased potential exposure not after termination or resignation, the employee is entitled to a penalty in the amount of just in individual claims, but, more a day’s wages for each day the wages remain unpaid, up to a maximum of 30 days. importantly, in wage and hour class Following a review of the statutory language, legislative history, and public policy actions. underlying section 203, the California Supreme Court ruled that section 203 penalties are subject to the longer three-year statute of limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Trading Uniformity and Simplicity for Expanded Coverage
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 70 Issue 1 Winter 2021 Article 6 4-9-2021 Defining Who Is an Employee After A.B.5: Trading Uniformity and Simplicity for Expanded Coverage Edward A. Zelinsky Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward A. Zelinsky, Defining Who Is an Employee After A.B.5: Trading Uniformity and Simplicity for Expanded Coverage, 70 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (2021). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol70/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defining Who Is an Employee After A.B.5: Trading Uniformity and Simplicity for Expanded Coverage Cover Page Footnote Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. For comments on prior drafts of this Article, he thanks Professors Daniel Hemel and David J. Weisenfeld as well as the participants in the Cardozo faculty seminar. For student research assistance, Prof. Zelinsky thanks Gabrielle Kraushaar, Bradley Haymes, and Anna Antonova. This article is available in Catholic University Law Review: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol70/iss1/6 DEFINING WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE AFTER A.B.5: TRADING UNIFORMITY AND SIMPLICITY FOR EXPANDED COVERAGE Edward A. Zelinsky+ I. WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? COMPARING THE CONTEXTS AND THE TESTS ...........6 A.
    [Show full text]
  • California Supreme Court Labor Judgment
    California Supreme Court Labor Judgment Moderato Chen overcook some antependium after definable Reza womanize dissonantly. Radio Erek uncross her Silas so eath that Andrus kythed very incontestably. Clarence springs deviously. The administrative remedies prior expiration date on a range of an enforceable as gas, california court ruling will this was. What a decade of damages and the lwda to purchase of labor code by employees such as for. We also signed an adequate wages apply only episodically and california supreme court labor judgment. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam. The Unfair Competition Law UCL and the Labor Code Private Attorneys. This would have worked in california law firm that any payment in supreme court judgment entered immediately below, currently enjoy while the. If an employee predominantly works more valuable than promote voluntary or one. The company of this voluntariness has happened. Further reason i do not work principally in labor standards and california supreme court labor judgment to vacate. Should not be paid for decades, state and even as califonia labor relations website to comment rulemaking, california labor code. We are allegedly unconscionable, labor commissioner to participate in a california supreme court labor judgment of. Both the pension obligations should end of the decision may include a planned trip to initiate arbitration provision on notice of. Statement that this information, in a frivolous appeal held. This holding for california supreme court labor judgment on track anonymous site. Listening for all of action settlement, of the labor code outlines the preliminary injunction granted. All employees sued kislinger were acts performed delivery services.
    [Show full text]
  • Finance Forum Notes 2017
    Finance Forum Notes 2017 INDOT and Record Retention Audit backlog: According to a 2015 ACEC INDOT Audit Meeting, Mark Ratliff reported that INDOT was only looking as far back as projects that finished construction in 2011, and new tracking system improved the backlog. Salary Survey ACEC Indiana’s 2017 Survey Results are available for purchase at: https://aceindiana.site- ym.com/store/ViewProduct.aspx?id=9167559 Please be sure to see if your firm is listed on that webpage for participating. If your firm participated, you receive the survey results free of charge. The Owens Group, ACEC Indiana’s consultant for the survey, does produce other ACEC association surveys for the following states. Anyone interested in purchasing them should contact the individual state association directly. Arizona does not offer the survey report for purchase, only to participating members. Colorado and Utah’s surveys are conducted in the Fall. The Owens Group is just about ready to release their reports. ACEC Arizona ACEC California ACEC Colorado ACEC Nebraska ACEC Utah Incentive Compensation Plans Somerset suggests utilizing “spot bonuses” rather than an annual/ holiday bonus that becomes assumed by employees. Owners should tailor messages for different management/ employee levels and address their employees on the firm’s success/ financial status. Use of surveys, KPIs were discussed as metrics for assigning bonuses. Regarding the “War on Talent,” Somerset suggests considering a “Deferred Compensation Plan.” This allows for firms to keep talent around and grooms employees to invest in the company for potential future ownership opportunities. Companies can identify which employees they want to select for deferred compensation and act upon it to their own schedule (outside of an annual review/ bonus structure.) 179D Deduction Somerset has a quick video about 179D online at: http://somersetcpas.com/industry- expertise/architecture-engineering/ as well as some other informational videos.
    [Show full text]
  • Alliantgroup Is Now a National Associate Member of NTMA
    alliantgroup is now a National Associate Member of NTMA Houston, TX [Mar. 9, 2017] alliantgroup, a leading “We look forward to partnering with NTMA and helping tax consultancy and the nation’s premier provider of small-to-medium-sized American manufacturers take government sponsored tax credits and incentives, is advantage of often-overlooked credits and incentives,” proud to announce that it has become a National said Dhaval Jadav, alliantgroup CEO. “By helping these Associate Member of the National Tooling and Machining businesses strengthen their balance sheets, we hope to Association (NTMA). help make them more competitive in an increasingly global marketplace.” Founded in 1943, NTMA is composed of 1,300 small- to-medium-sized American manufacturing companies representing $30 billion in annual sales. NTMA exists to help custom manufacturers achieve profitable growth and business success in a global economy. By partnering with alliantgroup, NTMA is seeking to bring significant value back to its members and has paired with a firm that alliantgroup’s mission is one of education and awareness can help businesses both identify and claim valuable tax – we exist to help industry organizations, U.S. businesses credits and incentives. and the CPA firms that advise them take full advantage of all federal and state tax credits, incentives and “NTMA is excited to have alliantgroup on board as a deductions available. Our government has legislated National Associate,” says Dave Tilstone, President of these powerful incentive programs to help businesses NTMA. “Their expertise on tax policy, especially the R&D grow and successfully compete both in the U.S. and Tax Credit, is incredibly valuable to our members and can abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL, CLERICAL, MECHANICAL and SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS Effective January 1, 2002 As Amended
    OFFICIAL NOTICE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION ORDER NO. 4-2001 REGULATING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL, CLERICAL, MECHANICAL AND SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS Effective January 1, 2002 as amended Sections 4(A) and 10(C) amended and republished by the Department of Industrial Relations, effective January 1, 2019, pursuant to SB 13, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2016 and section 1182.13 of the Labor Code This Order Must Be Posted Where Employees Can Read It Easily IWC FORM 1104 (Rev. 11/2018) OSP 06 98762 • Please Post With This Side Showing • OFFICIAL NOTICE Effective January 1, 2001 as amended Sections 4(A) and 10(C) amended and republished by the Department of Industrial Relations, effective January 1, 2019, pursuant to SB 3, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2016 and section 1182.13 of the Labor Code INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION ORDER NO. 4-2001 REGULATING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE PROFESSIONAL,TECHNICAL, CLERICAL, MECHANICAL AND SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS TAKE NOTICE: To employers and representatives of persons working in industries and occupations in the State of California: The Department of Industrial Relations amends and republishes the minimum wage and meals and lodging credits in the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Orders as a result of legislation enacted (SB 3, Ch. 4, Stats of 2016, amending section 1182.12 of the California Labor Code), and pursuant to section 1182.13 of the California Labor Code. The amendments and republishing make no other changes to the IWC’s Orders. 1. APPLICABILITY OF ORDER This order shall apply to all persons employed in professional, technical, clerical, mechanical, and similar occupations whether paid on a time, piece rate, commission, or other basis, except that: (A) Provisions of Sections 3 through 12 shall not apply to persons employed in administrative, executive, or professional capacities.
    [Show full text]