New Legislation For 2002

Although the California Legislature was not as prolific on the employment law front in 2001 as in the past few years, there are several new laws employers should be aware of that took effect on January 1, 2002. The more notable include:

Minimum Wage Increase: Although not technically new legislation, on January 1, the state’s minimum wage increased to $6.75 per hour. This increase was the second portion of the minimum wage hike adopted by the Industrial Welfare Commission in 2000. Because the minimum salary requirement for the overtime exemption under the Executive, Administrative, and Professional exemptions is tied to the minimum wage, that minimum threshold also increased. Thus, in addition to meeting the duties tests for the overtime exemptions, an employee must also earn at least $28,080 per year ($2,340 per month) on a salary basis.

AB 800, English-Only Policies: This legislation, now found in California Government Code section 12951, makes it unlawful for an employer to prohibit the use of any particular language in the workplace unless the policy is justified by “business necessity.” Employers that have an English-only policy, or a policy that in any way restricts the use of a language in the workplace, should review it with legal counsel to ensure it complies with the new law.

AB 25, Domestic Partnerships: This legislation expands the scope of Labor Code section 233, which provides that an employee is entitled to use up to half of their annual sick leave accrual to care for an ill spouse, child, or parent, to provide that an employee also may use a portion of their sick leave to care for an ill domestic partner or a domestic partner’s child. Domestic partners must be registered with the California Secretary of State to take advantage of this new law.

SB 40, Unemployment Insurance: This legislation increased the maximum weekly unemployment benefit from $230 to $330 as of January 1, 2002. That weekly benefit will increase another $40 per year through

January 1, 2005.

AB 25, Lactation Accommodation: This legislation requires all private and public California employers to accommodate nursing mothers of an infant child for the expression of breast milk unless to do so would seriously disrupt the employer’s operations. Employers must provide a reasonable amount of break time for expression of breast milk which, where possible, shall be concurrent with an employee’s normal paid break. If this is not feasible, then the break time shall be unpaid. Employers also shall make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with a private location, other than a toilet stall, for purposes of expressing breast milk.

Disability Based on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Narrowed Under Federal Law

For the past decade, many employers have been confronted with the problem of how to respond to accommodation requests from employees with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (“CTS”). On January 8, 2002, the United States Supreme Court provided needed guidance in a variety of “disability” situations, holding in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams that CTS does not always constitute a disability under the ADA. This decision, while important on the federal level, has minimal impact in California because of the broader protections provided to employees under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Williams sued Toyota for failing to provide her with reasonable accommodation after she claimed that CTS prevented her from performing duties on an auto assembly line. Williams claimed she was disabled by her CTS because she was “substantially limited” in her ability to perform a “major life activity,” in this case performing manual tasks at work. However, the Supreme Court held that the analysis under the ADA should look not only at the activities an employee performs on the job, but also at activities that are important to an individual’s daily life. Thus, in analyzing whether an individual is disabled from performing manual tasks, the inquiry is whether the person has an impairment which, on a permanent or long term basis, prevents or severely restricts him or her from performing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. Such activities include household chores, bathing, gardening, playing with children, or brushing one’s teeth.

The evidence reflected that Williams was able to perform the types of daily tasks the court considered even though her CTS prevented her from performing manual tasks associated with her employment on the Toyota assembly line. Therefore, the court held that because Williams’ CTS did not “substantially limit” a “major life activity,” it did not qualify as a disability under the ADA. Thus, Toyota was not obligated to provide Williams with an accommodation.

Because the Court’s holding in Williams expands the ADA analysis to an individual’s ability to perform tasks in daily life and not just on the job, discovery in ADA cases likewise will broaden into these same areas. In most instances ADA cases already required evidence of the specific plaintiff’s limitation caused by his or her own condition. This individual inquiry will broaden into more personal daily tasks. This evidence also may be harder to verify as it will be more personal and less visible to others, as opposed to performing tasks at work.

While positive news for employers, the Williams case has limited impact in California because the Fair Employment and Housing Act requires only that a condition “limit” (and not “substantially limit”) a “major life activity” in order to qualify as a disability. Thus, California’s broader definition of a disability still will apply to cases brought under state law and the Williams holding will apply only to those ADA claims in California that are filed under federal law.

Williams is one of three ADA cases before the Supreme Court this term. The Court also is expected to rule on cases dealing with whether an employer’s duty to accommodate a disabled employee takes precedence over an established seniority system and whether an employer may refuse to hire a disabled person because the disability would make performing the job a threat to the employee’s life or health.

Because of the continuing changes in disability law and the varying state and federal standards, California employers grappling with such matters should seek counsel on implementing accommodations or prior to taking adverse action against disabled or potentially disabled employees.