In a substantial change of enforcement position, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has announced that employers can no longer require mandatory tip pooling with employees who do not “customarily and regularly receive tips” from guests, i.e. back-of-the-house employees like dishwashers, cooks, chefs and others. The DOL has recently advised its field offices nationwide to… Continue Reading
Tips cannot be garnished or calculated as part of earnings for garnishment purposes unless the employer has had control over those tips (e.g. tip sharing, service charges etc.) Many employers are not aware of this restriction and erroneously include tips in calculating earnings when processing garnishment orders. Unfortunately, many payroll vendors also are not aware… Continue Reading
Fact: It is estimated that there are about 12 million illegal aliens in the United States. Fact: It is estimated that about 24% of the employees in the food services and restaurant industries are immigrants. Fact: Illegal workers often have fake green cards or social security cards that appear to be genuine and cannot be… Continue Reading
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. From a single restaurant to a chain of more than one thousand outlets, every hospitality client should have basic policies and procedures to help guide them through managing their employees. The red hot employment law issues in restaurants these days continue to be: 1) claims… Continue Reading
On April 5, 2011, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor published its final amendments to regulations interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. Several of the amendments will impact the way restaurants pay tipped employees.
Garnishment is a legal process by which an employer must withhold funds in its possession belonging to an employee and send them to a creditor. However, some direct tips are never in the employer’s possession, and accordingly are not likely subject to garnishment.
On April 6, 2011, the Social Security Administration (SSA) resumed sending employers “Social Security no-match letters” advising employers that the Social Security numbers (SSNs) reported for certain employees do not match SSA records. The letters had been on hold since 2007 when a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Homeland Security… Continue Reading
On Jan. 31, 2011, yet another federal district court, this one in Virginia, ruled that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “Act”) is unconstitutional. That makes three for two: three federal courts that have ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual… Continue Reading
California employers are required to pay employees who report time pay when they show up for work, but don’t work at least half the scheduled shift. The statute requires that employers pay the greater of two hours or half the scheduled shift, to a maximum of 4 hours. It was previously unclear whether an employee… Continue Reading
In Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores and Home Depot U.S.A. v. Superior Court, two California Courts of Appeal have permitted employees to recover penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) because their employers failed to provide seating as required under the applicable IWC Wage Order. The same seating requirement appears in Wage Order 5,… Continue Reading
As 2010 is coming to a close and the first wave of effective dates for employer sponsored health plans are coming due, healthcare reform is beginning to feel like a reality. Is there any chance left that it might actually “go away” …like, not really happen?
The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied review of the 9th Circuit decision upholding the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance after it was challenged on the grounds that it was pre-empted by federal ERISA law. The Supreme Court’s denial of review prompts this “refresher” on the ordinance–and the ramifications for employers.
You just got an “SSN no-match” notice – an employee’s name does not match his or her Social Security number. Now what? Is it grounds for termination? Should you give the employee a deadline for resolving the discrepancy? Should you ask the employee to submit new documents to re-verify his or her employment eligibility?