Archives for November 3, 2021

Is Your Employer Failing to Take Your Per Diem Wages Into Account For the Purpose of Calculating Your Overtime Pay?

Per diem payments, sometimes also called a “daily allowance,” are made to workers in many industries. Per diem payments are supposed to cover for expenses incurred in furtherance of the employer’s business that would otherwise be reimbursable to the employee, and when used properly they can save workers the hassle of preparing expense reports for their employers. 

However, some employers may want to use “per diem” payments as a means of paying wages, which could lead to violations of state and federal overtime laws. Labor laws that set forth minimum wages require all eligible employers to pay employees overtime at “not less than one and one-half times” the employees’ regular rates of pay. True per diem payments are excluded from the regular rate of pay. But if a per diem benefit functions as compensation for work performed rather than as genuine reimbursement for expenses incurred, the per diem payments need to be calculated in the employees’ regular rate of pay because they are functionally “wages” for the purpose of overtime laws. 

If an employer wrongly treats wages as per diem payments, the employees’ overtime rate of pay would be unlawfully reduced. The employee might also be undercompensated for PTO under certain circumstances, such as where the employer’s policy provides for payment at the “regular rate of pay,” or when an employee receives a payout of earned-but-unused vacation pay at the end of employment.  

The question of whether a per diem payment is functionally a “wage” or truly a reimbursement for expenses can be difficult to answer. An accurate assessment ultimately depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, but courts resolving the issue have looked at some of the following factors:

  • The amount of per diem payments in relation to other compensation;
  • How the employer treats the per diem payments;
  • Whether the employer requires substantiation of any expenses incurred by the employee;
  • Whether employees receive per diem payments regardless of their working location and any need to cover expenses;
  • Whether the per diem payments do not reasonably approximate actual expenses; and
  • Whether the per diem payments vary with the hours worked.

If you are being paid per diem or a daily allowance and you suspect your employer may be using “per diem” payments to reduce your regular rate of pay for labor pay purposes, contact an experienced labor lawyer immediately because you could recover the unpaid wages in a civil lawsuit against your employer. 

California Workers: You May Be Able to Say “No” to Forced Arbitration

On September 15, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lifted an injunction that had prevented enforcement of two California statutes: Labor Code section 432.6 and Government Code section 12953. The Labor Code statute prevents employers from requiring their employees, as a condition of employment, to give up their right to sue in court for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) or the Labor Code. The Government Code section makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for purposes of the FEHA if an employer violates the Labor Code section. 

Although the statutes are broadly written to protect the workers’ access to the courts, one common application would be in the context of forced arbitration agreements. Such agreements have become a fixture of the modern workplace, and employers frequently require employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their right to a court trial in the event of a legal dispute with the employer. Labor Code section 432.6 and Government Code section 12953 work together to protect a worker’s right to say “no” when an employer asks the employee to waive their right to a court trial as part of a forced arbitration agreement, at least for claims under the FEHA or the California Labor Code. If an employer discharges or refuses to hire a worker who properly exercise his or her right to say “no,” the anti-retaliation provision of the FEHA create an independent basis for a lawsuit against the employer. This gives the new statutes some “teeth” by empowering workers not only to assert their rights, but to hold companies accountable when those rights are denied.

Together, the FEHA and the Labor Code contain the majority of protections available to California workers. For example, the FEHA contains the principle anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation laws that protect California workers’ right to equal opportunity in the workplace. The Labor Code protects the rights to a minimum wage, and to overtime for many workers in California. Now, California workers have a right to say “no” when their employers want to force employees to give up their rights to have those claims heard in court. 

Businesses may yet appeal this issue to the United States Supreme Court, which would then have the final say on whether to invalidate these statutes as a matter of federal law. For now, California workers are free to protect their access to the courts. Workers should say “no” if current or prospective employers try to make them sign forced arbitration agreements, and they should contact an experienced labor and employment attorney if they experience any discrimination or retaliation for asserting their rights. 

California Lenders May Not Require Excess Homeowners Insurance Coverage as a Condition of Lending

If you are among the many Californians who purchased or refinanced a home recently to take advantage of low mortgage interest rates, your lender may have violated California law by requiring you to purchase excess hazard insurance as a condition of receiving a loan.

In California, lenders may require homeowners have hazard insurance (also called homeowners insurance or fire insurance) as a condition of extending credit. However, the lender may not require a borrower to purchase insurance over and above the cost of replacing the buildings on the property. In other words, you cannot be required to purchase more insurance than would cover the cost of constructing a new home if yours burned down. 

Unfortunately, some lenders in California may be violating that law by adopting unlawful policies, such as requiring a borrower have hazard insurance that covers 80% of the property’s total value, as opposed to the replacement value. A policy like this could lead to unlawfully high insurance requirements because the total value of real property can be much higher than the cost of the buildings on that property. For example, a small home on a piece of prime real estate might only cost $300,000 to build; but the property itself might be worth substantially more than that because of the location, particularly in a hot real estate market. Thus, basing the insurance requirement on the property’s total value would force homeowners to borrow much more than the replacement cost of their homes, which would in turn violate California law.

If your lender required you to purchase homeowners insurance coverage that exceeds the replacement value of your home, you should contact an experienced consumer attorney. The attorneys at Haeggquist & Eck can determine if you might have a claim against the lender to recover for the damages caused by such an unlawful practice. 

Translate »