By now many in the home care industry have heard about recent California and Federal laws which may drastically impact how home care companies operate.
This is the first of two articles. Article 1 summarizes some significant changes. Article 2 provides some possible alternative contractual/care arrangement for home care companies, their employees and the care recipients to consider.
First, what changed?
A. ASSEMBLY BILL 241
Recently, the California Legislature passed AB 241, known as the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (“DWBR”). There are many components to DWBR and you should consult with an attorney about how the law affects you, but the following is one of the major changes made by this law.
Read More
As of January 1, 2012, there are two new subtypes of stock corporations in California: a Flexible Purpose Corporation and a Benefit Corporation. This article provides a brief overview of these corporation types.
WHAT IS A FLEXIBLE PURPOSE CORPORATION?
Purpose: A Flexible Purpose Corporation (FPC) is a for-profit corporation that may also pursue environmental or other public purpose objectives. Nonprofit corporations often prove inadequate for “social entrepreneurs” because the Internal Revenue Code and regulations severely restrict the for-profit activities of a nonprofit corporation, and the process of seeking tax-exempt status can be prohibitively lengthy. On the other hand, the two business forms available to for-profit entrepreneurs—the corporation and the limited liability company—have downsides when social objectives are combined with profit-making goals. These downsides are especially problematic when traditional investment capital is sought. A FPC integrates the “for profit” aspect of a traditional corporation and the charitable purpose of a non-profit corporation by allowing the corporation to have a flexible purpose which is stated in the articles of incorporation. Additionally, a flexible purpose corporation enables the board of directors to pursue a social object without the threat of a shareholders’ lawsuit for not maximizing profit.
Read More
On February 8, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, along with the States’ Attorney’s General announced that they had entered into a $26 billion settlement with the U.S.’s five biggest banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial.
After hearing this announcement, and in the last few months, many homeowners are probably wondering why they haven’t seen any of this money.
The good news is that on May 8, 2012, Bank of America announced that it has began reaching out to customers who may be eligible for forgiveness of a portion of the principal balance of their mortgage under the terms of the February 8 settlement.
Read More
Punitive Damages: How Much Can I Get—Or How Much Can Plaintiff Get Against Me?
Individuals and companies contemplating litigation often ask about the possibility of recovering punitive damages against a defendant. We all read articles about the “millions and millions” recovered in certain cases. Punitive damages are fundamentally punishment damages, essentially an amount of money a defendant may be required to pay to a plaintiff, which does not relate to a plaintiff’s damage or injury but as a punishment, or deterrent, for certain bad acts by the defendant. The following article provides the reader with some general guidance regarding such damage awards.
Read More
MEAL AND REST PERIODS FOR NONEXEMPT EMPLOYEES
Our small and medium size business clients often have questions relating to their employment practices. When relevant California or Federal laws change or are clarified, we want our clients to be informed.
A recent California case brought some clarity in the areas of meal and rest periods. (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court L 1216356, 14 -24 (Cal., 2012).
SUMMARY PRACTICE POINTS:
1. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer's meal break obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not thereby place the employer in violation of its obligations and create liability for premium pay under applicable law. In other words, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Of course, an employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.
Read More