Our Full Training Calendar
Our Spring
2016 Workshops and Webinar
Discounts are available for our retained clients!
May 4, 2016
May 18, 2016
**
This workshop/webinar is required for all CA supervisors and managers in firms with 50 or more employees and contractors. It meets all requirements under the new FEHA regulations.
Reservations are required for Silvers HR classes.
Contact Mary Patterson at
(916) 791-8506 or
|
| New Pregnancy Notice to be Posted by April 1st - No Foolin' The CA Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing has issued the long awaited "Your Rights and Obligations as a Pregnant Employee" Notice. The Notice replaces Notices A and B and must be posted with the 2016 state employment posters by April 1, 2016. It must also be given to each pregnant employee as soon as the employer is notified of the pregnancy. You can find a copy of the new Notice at the DFEH website here |
|
Silvers HR, LLC
This ezine is intended
as a communication
and thought provoking tool for our clients
and friends. It is
not legal advice.
If you would like to
be
removed from our distribution list, please reply to this email and note "unsubscribe" in
the subject line.
© 2015 Silvers HR, LLC. All Rights Reserved
|
|
| |
|
The DOL's Exempt Salary Ruling is
Around the Corner - Preparing for the Worst
By Kim Silvers, SPHR-CA, SHRM-SCP
Last summer we told you of the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) announcement to amend 29 CFR Part 541, the "white collar" exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees. The comment period has passed and the DOL will announce their final decision sooner than originally anticipated, by late spring/early summer. Here's a little background and our suggestions to prepare for the worst case scenario.
If the DOL proposal passes, the minimum salary for an exempt employee in 2016 is projected to be $970 per week or $50,440 per year; the highly-compensated employee standard would be set at $122,148. Employees earning less than $970 per week or $50,440 per year would have to be paid overtime if they are classified as a manager or professional. There are actually two tests to classify a position as exempt - the salary test (above) and a duties test.
|
Significant Changes to the Anti-Harassment Policies, Training and Procedures
By Kim Silvers, SPHR-CA, SHRM-SCP
The CA Fair Employment Housing Council (FEHC) has been working overtime to create more compliance requirements for our employers. The most arduous of the recent list is renewed emphasis on anti-harassment, discrimination and retaliation policies and employees' mandated acknowledgement of their rights under these laws.
Effective April 1, 2016, all CA employers with five or more employees must ensure their employees receive and acknowledge a written anti-harassment policy. The FEHC has outlined very specific information that must be included in each policy, as well as the training required for managers and supervisors in organizations with 50 or more employees and contractors.
All California harassment, discrimination and retaliation policies must be in writing and include the following:
|
March Madness: Pending California Employment Bills
Topics: New Laws & Legislation
By Robin E. Largent, Partner at Carothers, DiSante & Freudenberger LLP
Curious what the California Legislature is up to this legislative session? As is the case every year, there are several employment-related bills that have been proposed and are pending. As is also the case virtually every year, most of the proposed bills are bad for employers. Here are some of the notable bills that California employers may want to watch:
The Good (the short list)
AB 1948 (limiting recovery for meal and rest break claims): This bill would make the one hour of premium pay owed for a missed meal or rest break a penalty for statute of limitations purposes and would make it the sole penalty recoverable by an employee for a meal or rest break violation. If passed, this would reduce the period of recovery from 3 (really 4) years to 1 year, and would prevent stacking of penalties (e.g. under Labor Code section 203, 558, 2699) for the same violation).
|
|
| |
|
