Calif. Supreme Court Rules Against Required Lunch Breaks

 Calif. Supreme Court Rules Against Required Lunch Breaks

A California Supreme Court ruling today found than employers are under no obligation to ensure an employee takes meal breaks. The decision was found in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego. Brinker International, Inc. owns and franchises restaurant chain brands including Chili’s Bar & Grill and Maggiano’s Little Italy.

“Today the California Supreme Court defined key aspects of California’s meal and rest period laws – especially, that employers need not force their employees to take meal periods they would prefer to skip,” said Rex Heinke, Partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld and Brinker’s lead attorney before the California Supreme Court.

Under current California law, Section 512 of the Labor Code, businesses are obligated to provide a 30 minute uninterrupted break to employees working more than five hours a day, where they are free to leave the premises and relieved of all duty for the duration of the break.

The court found an employee is free to work through their break and an employer is not liable for paying a premium wage. They are liable for regular pay only if the employer “knew or reasonably should have known that the worker was working through the authorized meal period.”

“This is huge for small businesses across the state, from mom and pop restaurants to doctor offices to construction companies,” said Republican Minority Whip Assemblyman Dan Logue in a statement today. “Small businesses have been held hostage by California’s strict meal and rest break laws for years and this will bring tremendous relief as our economy begins to emerge from the recession.”

There have been numerous class-action lawsuits over violations of work break statutes in the past, including groups filing damages against Wal-Mart and Target. In 2010, Wal-Mart settled a class-action suit over meal breaks and rest periods for $75 million.

Today’s decision is considered a landmark as it answers meal break labor law questions that have left other class action suits in limbo, due to what Robert Roginson, management lawyer and partner with the firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, says is ambiguous language in California’s Labor Code.

“The ebb and flow of business in dining establishments is contingent upon customer volume at a given time. Providing oversight to each and every employee’s meal-and-rest break would have been a huge challenge for employers all over California,” Roginson said in a statement. “This ruling strikes the right balance, ensuring employees are guaranteed meal breaks, while still giving them the flexibility to work when they have the greatest potential for commissions or tips.”


LINK  TO:  CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION  (PDF)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County

How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses

BROKEN RECORDS:  How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses



Mistakes on criminal background screening reports cost workers' jobs and skirt federal law (Fair Credit Reporting Act). Federal and state government and courts each have a role in improving the accuracy of background checks.

Since September 11, 2001, there's been an explosion in criminal background checks for job applicants by employers, yet many reports are riddled with errors. An industry-wide lack of accountability and incentives to cut corners mean that tens of millions of workers may pay for these third-party errors with their jobs while employers waste money and miss out on hiring qualified employees.

This report investigates common poor practices and mistakes with recommendations for solutions and the role of federal agencies and state government in holding background screening companies accountable for accurate work. It is essential that the Wild West of employment screening be reined in so consumers are not guilty until proven innocent.

A high percentage of adults living in the United States are affected.


About 93% of employers conduct criminal background checks on some applicants, while 73% of employers conduct checks on all applicants, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.

Nearly 1 in 4 adults (an estimated 65 million people) in the U.S. have a criminal record.

Many additional people without a criminal record are wrongly tagged as having a record.
The problems are industry-wide.


There are no licensing requirements for criminal background agencies. Anyone with a computer and access to records can start a business; the total number of companies is unknown.

There is no central system for registration for background checking companies. A consumer can't regularly order his or her own report to review for errors as there is no central source to find and request a copy.

Many companies attempt to skirt the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by subcontracting work to other vendors or disclaiming responsibility.

Employers often fail to comply with the FCRA. This makes it difficult to know whether consumers were denied employment due to a background check report.

NCLC's research reveals that criminal background screening companies' reports routinely:

    Mismatch people (i.e. a person with no criminal background with someone who has a record, which is especially problematic for people with common names);
    Omit crucial information about a case, (i.e. a person is arrested but then found innocent);
    Reveal sealed or expunged information (i.e. a juvenile offense);
    Provide misleading information, (i.e. a single charge listed multiple times), and/or
    Misclassify offenses (i.e. reporting a misdemeanor as a felony).


Many errors are due to common poor practices by background screening companies, such as:

    Retrieving information through bulk record disseminations and failing to routinely update their databases;
    Failing to verify information obtained through subcontractors and other faulty sources;
    Using unsophisticated matching criteria;
    Failing to use all available information to prevent a false positive match; and
    Lacking understanding about state specific criminal justice procedures.

Recommendations


The National Consumer Law Center report recommends that federal regulatory agencies and states use their authority to rein in industry-wide problems (see page 35 of full report for detailed recommendations).

1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) can issue regulations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (enacted in 1970 by Congress to protect the privacy of consumers) to ensure greater accuracy of background checks. The CFPB can also require consumer reporting agencies to register so consumers can correct inaccurate and misleading information.

2. The Federal Trade Commission can investigate major commercial background screening companies for common FCRA violations and investigate major, nationwide employers for compliance with the FCRA requirements for users of consumer reports for employment purposes.

3. State legislatures, administrative agencies and courts can require companies that receive bulk data from court databases to promptly delete sealed and expunged criminal records and routinely update their records. States can also audit companies and if not in compliance, states can revoke the companies' receipt of data.

LINK TO ARTICLE :
BROKEN RECORDS: How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses


LINK TO STUDY  PDF  PUBLICATION :
National Consumer Law Center Study: BROKEN RECORDS pdf

Hearing postponed for man accused of impersonating private investigator for Hawthorne

By Sandy Mazza Staff Writer

Posted:   04/03/2012 03:29:25 PM PDT

A preliminary hearing was continued Tuesday for a man charged with impersonating a private investigator while working for the city of Hawthorne.
The hearing was postponed because the attorney for Edward Joseph Ortega was involved in another trial. Judge Kathryn Solorzano ordered Ortega to return to the Airport Courthouse on April 20 for a preliminary hearing.
Ortega, 41, was charged last year with four felonies for perjury and false personation while conducting surveillance and questioning of city employees. He had been hired by former Hawthorne City Manager Jim Mitsch to investigate employees in the spring and summer of 2010. Later, records revealed that Ortega was not licensed to work as a private investigator and that he had falsified employment documents.


http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20317963/hearing-postponed-man-accused-impersonating-private-investigator-hawthorne

EEOC Has Plans To Limit Background Checks

EEOC Has Plans To Limit Background Checks

The EEOC is considering guidance to limit the use of criminal histories in employment background checks including a plan to limit employers to a seven-year look back period.

Recently, more than 50 organizations signed a joint letter to EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien regarding the use of criminal histories in employment screening.

The letter urges the EEOC to consider the need for thorough background investigations to protect coworkers and customers.

The signers are from associations representing private and public sector employers, human resource professionals, business and volunteer organizations.

They are concerned that the EEOC will revise long-standing guidance that will make it more difficult for employers and volunteer organizations to review criminal histories of job applicants and volunteers.

In their letter, this group of employers noted their full support for equal employment opportunity and their opposition to unlawful discrimination.

They recognize that fair and appropriate use of criminal histories is an important tool to protect organizations and their workers, customers, and assets.

The signers point out that a fair approach is needed to strike the right balance.

Many states require background checks for a variety of private-sector positions and state licenses.

Many states have laws that hold employers liable for negligent hiring and negligent retention of employees with a history of violent behavior that cause harm to co-workers or the public.

These rules are designed to protect vulnerable individuals such as children, the elderly and the disabled, as well as the general public who might invite strangers into their homes for repairs and deliveries without knowledge of their criminal history.

In Background Checks, there is NO Magic Button!

In Background Checks, there is NO Magic Button!

Legal Support Investigative Service

Camp Lejeune Toxic Water Registration Link

 

The Marine Corps encourages all those who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune before 1987 to register to receive notifications regarding Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Water.

LINK: To Register if you served at Camp Lejeune before 1987 

 

Background

This section provides background information on how contaminants were first discovered in water systems at Camp Lejeune, the sampling that has followed and the closing of effected wells. Other scientific information on the water testing and chemicals that were found, in addition to, Marine Corps actions and decisions are detailed in this section.

In 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published interim standards for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) (disinfection byproducts from water chlorination). Based on this ruling, Camp Lejeune began to monitor for TTHMs in November 1982 and was in full compliance with applicable requirements by November 1983. To prepare for the compliance requirements, the Atlantic Division - Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDIV) contracted water quality testing with the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency and Jennings Laboratories. The sampling initiative began at Camp Lejeune in July 1980.

From 1980-81, TTHM sampling was performed at Camp Lejeune's Hadnot Point and New River water treatment plants. Various other points in the water distribution systems were also sampled. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified as interference (i.e., an influence by chemicals other than TTHMs) in the TTHM sampling from Hadnot Point. In February 1982, LANTDIV recommended Camp Lejeune to initiate contractual agreements to begin TTHM monitoring through a North Carolina-certified laboratory. Camp Lejeune initiated this TTHM sampling in spring, 1982 with Grainger Laboratories. The first sets of TTHM samples, obtained in April 1982, were collected at various points which included the water treatment plant effluent, pumping stations, and various sinks. No individual wells were sampled.

In May 1982, the Grainger Labs TTHM analyses revealed VOC interference. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were identified in samples from Tarawa Terrace and Hadnot Point. In August 1982, Camp Lejeune received the samples’ analytical results, which quantified TCE and PCE concentrations from Grainger Labs. Further Tarawa Terrace and Hadnot Point TTHM testing resulted in sporadic interference by VOCs. Due to sampling completed in summer 1982, levels of PCE averaged approximately 90 ug/L in the Tarawa Terrace system and levels of TCE averaged 20 ug/L in the Hadnot Point system. (Camp Lejeune did obtain one sample indicating TCE at 1400 ug/L on May 27, 1982. This sample is not included in the average because the Base chemist who reviewed the analysis saw it as an anomaly.) Although no regulatory standards were established for either of these chemicals at the time, EPA published a SNARL (Suggested No-Adverse Response Level) for both TCE and PCE. Comparison of the average PCE and TCE concentrations with the respective SNARLs revealed Hadnot Point’s water below the long-term TCE SNARL and Tarawa Terrace’s water was between the 10-day and long-term PCE SNARL.

In August 1982, Camp Lejeune had reason to suspect that the appearance of PCE concentrations in the water samples could have resulted from the use of coated asbestos-cement pipe in the Tarawa Terrace raw water lines. Further discussion regarding the potential source of these compounds led to: continued sampling and analysis of the drinking water systems, additional sampling and analysis of the water supply, and the acceleration of the Naval Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) Program at Camp Lejeune (established to identify areas of the Base which required cleanup).

Camp Lejeune continued to use Grainger Labs for TTHM sampling through 1982 and analyzed over 200 samples to ensure TTHM compliance. The analytical results from this sampling showed VOC interference in certain samples. During this time, Camp Lejeune evaluated the water treatment plants for potential sources of VOCs (e.g., paint, solvents used in equipment, and sources from other operations), performed inorganic chemical and corrosively analyses, and continued planning for various infrastructure replacements at the Tarawa Terrace and Holcomb Boulevard water treatment plants. Camp Lejeune remained in contact with North Carolina’s Water Supply Branch (Division of Health Services, Department of Human Resources), which had primacy over the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] in NC, and also monitored other SDWA water quality requirements (e.g., metals, pH, etc.). Camp Lejeune’s water systems were in full compliance with SDWA requirements at this time.

In January 1982, the NACIP Program at Camp Lejeune began to identify potentially contaminated sites on the base. In 1983, the NACIP initial assessment study was published. This study led to the subsequent sampling of individual water supply wells in 1984. A direct association between VOCs in the Hadnot Point and Tarawa Terrace drinking water and VOCs in the wells and groundwater was established when the water supply wells were sampled (beginning in 1984). The Base confirmed the wells impacted by VOCs and shut them down in late 1984 and early 1985.

The Survey

This section illustrates the methods and procedures of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as a result of the discovery of chemicals in Camp Lejeune base water systems. Information on the previous health assessment, study, and survey leading up to the current ATSDR study are also found in this section.

In 1997, a public health assessment (PHA) was completed by ATSDR at Camp Lejeune. The ATSDR was particularly interested in routine drinking water tests (conducted in the 1980s) that found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at detectable levels in some on-base drinking water supply wells.

On April 28, 2009, ATSDR announced that they were removing the 1997 PHA for Camp Lejeune from their Web site. According to ATSDR, the PHA should have mentioned benzene contamination and stated that the extent of exposure to benzene was unknown. The ATSDR is currently conducting water modeling as part of an ongoing study to determine if past exposure to VOCs from contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune is associated with certain birth defects and childhood cancers. After the water modeling is completed, the ATSDR will re-analyze and update the PHA. Persons interested in reading the 1997 PHA may request a printed copy by contacting the ATSDR Records Center at (770) 488-0707, or e-mail: atsdrrecordscenter@cdc.gov.

(Note: The ATSDR conducted extensive literature reviews and developed Toxicological Profiles for these chemicals and many others. The Toxicological Profiles can be found on the ATSDR Web site. Other names for perchloroethylene include: tetrachloroethylene, PCE, perc, tetrachloroethene, perclene, and perchlor. The ATSDR Toxicological Profile for PCE can be found under "tetrachloroethylene.")

In 1998, the ATSDR completed a birth outcome study of women who conceived or gave birth to children aboard Camp Lejeune. The ATSDR concluded that drinking water contaminated with VOCs may be associated with decreased average birth weight-for-gestational-age births in infants born to mothers over the age of 35 or in women who had a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The ATSDR qualified the associations and warned that results must be interpreted with caution. It also concluded that any possible relationship between VOCs and adverse pregnancy outcome(s) needed additional study.

As a follow up action to the study of birth outcomes, the ATSDR began a survey in fall 1999. The survey’s overall goal was to identify cases of specific childhood diseases among children born to women who became pregnant while living in base housing at Camp Lejeune from 1968 to 1985. During the survey, the ATSDR administered a screening questionnaire to 12,598 former residents of Camp Lejeune to identify specific types of childhood illnesses. The telephone-screening phase of the project ended January 26, 2002. The ATSDR evaluated the self-reported cases of certain childhood illnesses and other health-related information.
In January 2003, the ATSDR released an interim report on the survey results and mailed this report to survey participants and interested parties. The survey interviews provided specific childhood cancers and birth defects. To verify the self-reported health conditions, the ATSDR reviewed medical records of selected respondents and/or interviewed physicians that provided diagnoses of health conditions. Once cases were verified, the rates for childhood cancer and birth defects of interest were compared to the rates for a comparable population. These comparison findings are published in the ATSDR’s final survey report.

Updated information about the survey and any follow-up study will be provided as it becomes available.