Orange County Employment Lawyer Blog

My Orange County Employment Law Firm has recently handled two rental offset cases, one in Orange County and one in Los Angeles County. Generally, rent may not be credited against minimum wage without a voluntary written agreement between the employee and the employer. Both clients were property managers, one at a Hotel and the other at a large apartment complex. They earned low hourly wages, and had their rent offset from their wages. This is legal, however, there are strict guidelines as to what the employer can deduct as a rental credit.

Regardless if there is a written agreement or not, the amount of the rental credit must not be more than the following: (1) $37.63 per week for rooms occupied alone; (2) $31.06 per week for shared rooms; (3) Two-thirds of the ordinary rental value but never more than $451.89 per month for apartments; (4) Where a couple are both employed by the employer, two-thirds of the ordinary value but never more than $668.46 per month. (All listed amounts effective as of January 1, 2008.)

Any employer who has failed to abide by these limitations or who has otherwise failed to implement a voluntary written agreement as required, may be liable to the affected employee for not only the amount of wages unpaid as a result of the unlawful offset, but also for penalties, interest, and reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and costs.

RELATED RESOURCES

Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5-2001, 10(c)

In the recent California Court of Appeals decision Jeewarat v. Warner Brothers Entertainment, the Court relied on what is known as the "special errand doctrine". This doctrine provides an exception to the "going and coming rule" which means that an employee who has an accident during travel time to and from home to work is solely responsible for the accident, not the employer.

My Orange County Employment Law Firm has handled many cases regarding travel time. However, those cases usually center on whether or not an employee is entitled to wages while traveling for his or her employer. In the Jeewarat case, the employee was driving home from the airport after a three day business trip when he struck three pedestrians, killing one of them and injuring the others. Those pedestrians then sued the employee and his employer, Warner Brothers.

The Court held that the "special errand doctrine" provided an exception to the going and coming rule. Because Warner Brothers paid for its employee's airfare, hotel, and other travel expenses, the entire trip was not concluded until the employee reached his home. Consequently, the Court found Warner Brothers to be vicariously liable (responsible) for its employee's actions, and thus liable for damages to the pedestrians.

Any California employee who feels they were discriminated against at work due to a disability falls under the auspice of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). As discussed in my prior blog post, disabilities used to be defined as "conditions that affect one or more of the body systems, such as the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and that limit an individual's ability to participate in a major life activity." On September 23, 2009, the new Amendments to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) were published, which included some of the following items:

• The definition of "disability" was broadened, making it easier for an employee to establish that she has a disability. Specifically, where it once said "substantially limiting a major life activity", the new amendment does not require the disability to be significant or severely restricting a major life activity.
• The definition of "major life activities" was significantly broadened.
• If a disability is in remission but would substantially limit a major activity when "active" it still would be considered a disability.

These new amendments emphasize that a disability should be construed broadly in favor of the employee, which will make it much easier for employees to establish a disability under the ADA.

RELATED RESOURCES

EEOC Notice Concerning the ADA Amendments Act of 2008