Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Testimonials

Teukolsky Law Blog.

CALifornia's powerful new joint employer law

6/13/2017

1 Comment

 
Last weekend, I spoke on a panel for the Coalition of Low-Wage and Immigrant Worker Advocates (CLIWA) about California's new joint employer laws.  One of the most powerful is California Labor Code sec. 2810.3, which imposes strict liability on a "client employer" for wage violations when the client employer uses workers supplied by a "labor contractor" to perform labor within the client employer's "usual course of business."  Examples are a supermarket that uses a staffing agency to supply janitors to clean its stores; a hotel resort that uses a staffing agency to supply security guards to patrol the resort; or a warehouse that uses a staffing agency to supply workers to load and unload goods.  

According to the American Staffing Association, more than three million temporary and contract employees work for American's staffing companies during an average week, and the numbers are growing.  While businesses tout the benefits of increased flexibility allowed by such arrangements, those benefits often come at the workers’ expense.  As David Weil, former Administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, persuasively argued in his highly-recommended book, “The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can Be Done to Improve It,” this business strategy has generated huge profits for large corporations (and value for their investors), but has resulted in declining wages, a lack of benefits, and dangerous working conditions.

In 2014, the California Legislature passed AB 1897, which added Labor Code sec. 2810.3 to make it easier for a temporary worker to collect unpaid wages from an employer whose name doesn't appear on the worker's paycheck.  Under the law, a supermarket is automatically liable if the staffing agency shorts a janitor on  wages.  The supermarket is liable not only for paying the wages, but is also subject to hefty penalties that often accompany wage violations.  The supermarket is liable regardless of whether it knew that the staffing agency was shorting its workers' pay.  The law is meant to encourage employers to use reputable staffing agencies, and to take affirmative steps to ensure that the staffing agencies are properly compensating their employees.  

Even though Labor Code sec. 2810.3 went into effect on January 1, 2015, there are very few cases that alleged 2810.3 wage claims.  I located only a handful of trial court orders discussing 2810.3 claims, and there are no appellate decisions yet.  In my informal survey of California plaintiff-side employment lawyers, only a handful had brought claims under 2810.3.  It appears that the law is being under-enforced, whether because practitioners are unaware of its existence or because the low-wage workers who would most benefit from its enforcement are unable to locate attorneys willing to bring cases on their behalf.  It is critical that attorneys understand the power of 2810.3 - there is no need to allege or prove joint employer status to collect wages from a "client employer."  Liability is automatic, so long as the coverage requirements are met.  What more could you want?

If you believe that your employer has failed to pay you all of the wages you are owed, you may benefit from consulting a qualified plaintiff-side employment attorney.  
1 Comment
california professional corporation link
10/6/2018 05:29:09 pm

Informative post. I adored perusing your blog and keep up the considerable posts. Its great to share thoughts and contemplation. I will impart this to my companions who are dental practitioners also. Much appreciated and continue refreshing more tips and tricks. By the way, thanks a bunch for sharing. :)

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Lauren Teukolsky is the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation.

    Archives

    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017

    Categories

    All
    AB 2188
    AB 257
    AB5
    AB 51
    ADA
    Advocate Magazine
    Amazon
    Arbitration
    Arbitration Agreement
    Avvo
    Bereavement Leave
    Black Lives Matter
    Blackwell
    Bloomberg
    Boycott
    CAFA
    California
    California Labor And Employment Review
    CBA
    CELA
    CFRA
    Chateau Marmont
    Class Action
    Class Action Waiver
    CLEL
    Client Choice
    College Of Labor And Employment Lawyers
    Confidentiality
    Congress
    Coronavirus
    COVID
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    CROWN Act
    Daily Journal
    De Minimis
    Discrimination
    Dynamex
    Ella Hushagen
    Employee
    Family Leave
    Fast Food Workers
    FEHA
    Forced Arbitration
    Gender Dysphoria
    Gender Gap
    Gender Identity
    Gig Workers
    Google
    Governor Newsom
    Harassment
    Healthcare Worker
    Health Insurance
    Higher Wages
    Hms Host
    Hotel
    HR 4445
    HWPO
    Immigration
    Independent Contractor
    Lauren Teukolsky
    Law360
    Lawsuit
    Lax
    Legal Aid At Work
    Legislation
    Living Wage Ordinance
    Lyft
    McDonalds
    MeToo
    #metoo
    Microsoft
    Misclassification
    Montage
    NDA
    Nonbinary
    Non Disclosure Agreement
    Non-disclosure Agreement
    Non-disparagement
    Organizing
    Oscars
    PAGA
    Pay Gap
    Pendry
    Private Attorney General Act
    Prop 22
    Race Discrimination
    Remote Work
    Reproductive Health
    Retaliation
    Roe V. Wade
    SB 1162
    SCOTUS
    Settlement
    Sex Harassment
    Sexual Assault
    Sexual Harassment
    Sick Leave
    Silenced No More
    Silicon Valley
    Speaking Engagement
    Strike
    Super Lawyers
    Supreme Court
    Tech
    Teukolsky
    Teukolsky Law
    Thomasina Gross
    Toolkit
    Training
    Transgender
    Troester
    UFCW
    Union
    Unions
    Unite Here
    Unite Here Local 11
    U.S. Soccer
    Vacation Time
    Wage And Hour
    Wage-and-hour
    Wage Gap
    Whistleblower
    Workers
    Workers Compensation
    Wrongful Termination

    RSS Feed

Home

About

Blog

Contact

Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation, represents clients throughout California.  Ms. Teukolsky is admitted to practice in the State of California, as well as the United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Northern District of California and Central District of California.  Disclaimer. 
​
Copyright © 2017
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Testimonials