Author: schneidersadmin

Ventura County Mask Mandate – Update

Posted on

Updated October 19, 2021

The Ventura County Public Health Officer has extended its indoor mandatory mask mandate, for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. County officials are concerned about the increased transmission of COVID-19, specifically among the unvaccinated. The mandate requires all persons to wear a face covering indoors, including the workplace. Masks must also be worn inside all government buildings, restaurants and bars, retail outlets, venues, and gatherings.

The extension requires that all business owners and employers continue to require its employees, customers, clients, delivery persons, and vendors wear mask inside the building, regardless of vaccination status.

If you have questions about your Company’s COVID-19 policies, please contact Chris Correa at ccorrea@rstlegal.com or Ted Schneider at tschneider@rstlegal.com.

Estate Planning Tax Law Changes – Be Prepared!

Posted on

None of us can predict what will happen in D.C., but we can take steps now to prepare for changes coming in the near future.

As we write this commentary, Congress and the White House are negotiating over proposed legislation which, if enacted in its current form, would significantly change tax laws that impact estate planning.

The latest proposals, incorporated into the budget reconciliation bill commonly known as the “Build Back Better Act.”  Most of the relevant proposals in the reconciliation bill would be effective as of the date of enactment, or as of January 1, 2022, whichever is later.

Understandably, estate planners are anxious about advising their clients to take action now in order to preserve certain advantages that could be curtailed by any new legislation. However, given the potential magnitude of the proposed changes and the uncertainty as to which of them will pass, it can be a challenge to know exactly what we should advise our clients to do.

The bottom line is that we don’t know what the final legislation will look like, or when specific new rules will be effective. All we can do is consider what has been proposed and how to advise clients in the event those proposals do become law.

The best advice for clients now is to be prepared – have documents ready to sign (perhaps more than one version, each designed to address a different legislative result) and have assets ready to transfer because time is – and will continue to be – of the essence.

Estate and Gift Tax Exemption Reduction – Using the Excess Exemption Before It’s Lost.

The unified estate and gift tax exemption is currently $11.7 million and is already scheduled to drop in 2026 to around $6 million. Pending legislation would accelerate this reduction, likely effective on January 1, 2022.

Most commentators feel this is the most likely change that will impact estate planning, and that it won’t be retroactive (but there are no guarantees). What we do know is that taking full advantage of the higher exemption before it’s gone requires using the full amount – $11.7 million – rather than making a smaller gift of say $6 million.

This is because a taxpayer’s use of the exemption is cumulative, so using the increased exemption before it is lost requires exhausting the amount of the potentially reduced exemption and making gifts in excess of that amount.

Making Gifts in Trust – Contending with the Grantor Trust Proposals.

For clients who wish to fully use the current high exemption by making gifts, it is usually best to give property away in trust – perhaps to children, a spouse and children, or other beneficiaries – to take advantage of the benefits provided by trusts, including creditor protection, asset management, and the reduction in transfer tax for future generations. In addition, gifts in trust allow for the use of certain safety nets to address the possibility of retroactive changes, as well as the concerns of clients who may be nervous about completely losing the benefit of transferred property.

Authorizing a qualified disclaimer of a gift in trust by the trustee or a particular beneficiary may provide a mechanism for unwinding a gift in the event retroactive changes make the gift undesirable.

One wrinkle the proposed legislation has thrown into trust planning is the potential for changes to the treatment of irrevocable grantor trusts. These proposed changes in irrevocable grantor trust treatment seem to be causing the most concern among estate planners, because they represent a radical shift.

Not only would irrevocable grantor trusts automatically be included in the grantor’s estate at death, but any action to terminate irrevocable grantor trust status before death would trigger an immediate taxable gift, as would distributions from a irrevocable grantor trust to beneficiaries.

As proposed, trusts in existence before the effective date – likely when signed by the President – will be “grandfathered” and not subject to the new rules. This means that irrevocable grantor trusts already in existence should not be included in the grantor’s estate, if no new contributions are made to the trust after the effective date. Therefore, non-grantor trusts will become much more common once again as they were before the early 1990’s.

If you are drafting a trust to use the increased exemption, it can be difficult to know whether to create an intentionally “defective” grantor trust, or whether it is a better strategy to draft a non-grantor trust.

We are now looking at ways to allow for flexibility, such as drafting the trust as a grantor trust and including a mechanism that can fully eliminate grantor trust status before the effective date of the law. Another option might be to draft a non-grantor trust with a mechanism to turn on grantor trust status if this portion of the proposed law is not enacted.

It also might be prudent to have two trusts ready to sign – one grantor and one non-grantor – so that you can decide after it becomes clear what changes in the law will take effect (i.e., once passed by Congress but before signed by the President) and take quick action before the law becomes effective.

The Impact of Grantor Trust Changes on ILITs.

The grantor trust changes will impact irrevocable life insurance trusts – or “ILITs” – which typically receive contributions annually to pay policy premiums. Those annual contributions will trigger the grantor trust inclusion even in an existing grandfathered ILIT, so pre-funding ILITs with enough funds to pay future premiums is recommended, to the extent the client can afford it. Split dollar life insurance arrangements may also be a viable option for certain clients.

Don’t Ignore Other Proposed Changes.

Although much of the focus in the estate planning world has been on the possible changes noted above, the proposals under consideration include a wide array of provisions that could impact estate planning clients in other ways.

For example, the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) would be expanded in a way that could seriously impact S Corporation shareholders who currently are not subject to FICA tax. Meaning, S-corporation profits, for the first time in history, would be subject to social security tax, which is 15.3% on the first $142,800 of S-corporation net income, plus 2.9% on income above that level, plus a surtax of another 0.9% on income tax exceeds $250,000 of S-corporation profits for joint filers ($200,000 for single filers).

Additionally, proposed valuation limits could curtail often-used planning techniques involving the transfer of family-owned entities considering valuation discounts.

In addition, the proposed grantor trust changes could have other sweeping effects. For example, they would have a chilling effect on grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) and sales to grantor trusts because satisfying annuity or note payments owed back to the grantor in kind would trigger taxable gain.

Additionally, the end of a GRAT term would appear to trigger a taxable gift to the remaindermen (the ultimate beneficiaries) under the grantor trust proposals discussed above. Without clarifying language in the statute (or forthcoming regulations), this would impact existing GRATs as well, which seems at odds with the other grandfathering available for grantor trusts created prior to the effective date.

The Takeaway – Be Prepared but Don’t Panic.

With the crystal ball cloudy on what provisions will be enacted and when, it’s wise to keep track of the legislative process and keep informed and ready to pull the trigger on trust planning in progress. There likely will not be more than a day or two between the time the news breaks that legislation has been passed and the time the President signs it, so the time to prepare is now.

Times of change require attentiveness and diligence, but don’t despair – none of us have, or can be expected to have, all the answers in the face of legislative uncertainty. The best thing we can do is to be prepared, and to open a frank dialogue about the potential changes and the possible benefits and risks involved in planning before those changes take effect. With the right drafting tools and good communication, we can help our clients navigate an uncertain and unnerving situation with calm and ease, by planning ahead and being ready to act when the time is right.

Adapted by John Balian, Esq, from a 10/5/2021 article written by

The ILS Legal Team of Interactive Legal

About John Balian

John Balian has been designated a Certified Specialist in Taxation Law by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California.  John’s areas of practice includes tax planning for sales of businesses and real estate, income and estate/gift tax audit representation, IRS Appeals, Tax Court representation, tax planning for judgments and settlements, estate and wealth transfer planning, and inheritance dispute consultation and mediation.

Don’t Miss Out on New State Income Tax Deduction for your Federal Tax Returns!

Posted on

To Qualify, Single Member LLCs and sole-proprietorship would have to become S-corporations or Partnerships for Tax Filing Purposes.

  • Since the Tax Cut and Jobs Act was passed, there’s been a $10,000 cap on the state and local/property tax deduction on individual federal income tax returns.
  • However, California now offers workarounds, allowing some pass-through business owners to sidestep the limit on state income and property tax write-offs.

A growing number of states, including California, are offering pass-through businesses (S-corporations, LLC that file a partnership tax return, and partnerships) a workaround for the $10,000 federal deduction limit for state income and property taxes, known as SALT (state and local taxes).  

Note, however, single-owner LLCs and sole proprietorships do not qualify for this tax break.

A controversial part of Republicans’ 2017 tax overhaul (“The ax Cut and Jobs Act),  the SALT write-off cap was and remains very costly for filers who itemize deductions and can’t claim more than $10,000 for property and state income taxes. 

The limit has been a burden to those in high-tax states, such as California.

The IRS has issued official guidance on these new state laws as in November 2020, offering the green light to certain businesses.

More than a dozen states have passed legislation to approve the workaround, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wisconsin, according to the American Institute of CPAs. There is pending legislation in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

However, it may not be the right move in all cases, financial experts say. 

How the tax on pass-through businesses works

Many companies are pass-through businesses with profits flowing to owners’ individual tax returns.

The new law allows the state income tax that would normally be paid by the owner, to be paid by the business entity.  If paid by the business entity, its federal taxable income passed-through to the owner will be lower by the amount of the state tax so paid, effectively giving the business owner a reduction in federal taxable income for the state income tax paid by the business, which is otherwise not available as a tax deduction for high-income individual taxpayers.

California Senate Bill 150 allows these qualifying businesses to pay an extra 9.3% tax on each owner’s share of the company’s net income.  Owners who participate may then claim a credit on their California tax return equal to the 9.3% tax, so that they only pay tax once company pass-through income.

By: John Balian, J.D. MS Tax, Of Counsel to Schneiders & Associates, L.L.P.

Adapted from CNBC Article published July 22, 2021

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/some-states-offer-workarounds-for-state-and-local-tax-deduction-limit.html

FDA APPROVAL OF THE PFIZER COVID-19 VACCINE – WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW

Posted on

On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The vaccine will be marketed as Comirnaty and is approved for people who are 16 years of age and older. The FDA’s approval will very likely encourage more employers to mandate that its employees receive the vaccine.

Some employers have been reluctant to mandate vaccinations, but researchers believe that the FDA approval will ease some of the concerns both employers and employees have about requiring a vaccine that had previously only been authorized for emergency use.

Employers are not required to mandate that employees receive the vaccine; however, those employers who do not require employees to be vaccinated will still need to comply with current legislation at the federal, state, and local levels, including regular testing for non-vaccinated employees, quarantining employees who are positive or have been advised to quarantine by a medical professional due to being exposed to Covid-19, and offering up to 80 hours of emergency sick leave through September 30, 2021.

Currently, Pfizer is the only Covid-19 vaccine to receive FDA approval. Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine is expected to receive the same approval once Moderna provides adequate information about the manufacturing process, its facilities, and submits to an in-depth inspection by the FDA.

Employers should still require their employees to submit proof of vaccination and keep accurate details including the date of the vaccination, whether both shots have been received, and what proof was provided by the employee (a copy of the vaccination card, the employee’s word, etc.). There have also been recent discussions about a booster shot for those individuals who have already been vaccinated. If—or when—the booster becomes necessary, the same requirements will likely apply.

Finally, regardless of the employer’s decision to mandate vaccination for its employees, the employer still has an obligation to offer reasonable accommodation for those employees who refuse the vaccine due to a medical condition or sincerely-held religious beliefs.

If you have any questions about implementing a vaccine requirement or if you need guidance in addressing a reasonable accommodation for certain employees, please contact Schneiders & Associates, L.L.P. at (805)764-6370.


By: Christopher Correa, Esq.

CalOSHA Updates Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) for COVID-19 in the Workplace

Posted on

Cal/OSHA Guidelines for Employers

After nearly 15 months of being quarantined, tested, facemasked, socially-distanced, and finally vaccinated, Californians are returning to “normalcy”, which in many instances, means returning to the workplace. Below you will find what Employers need to know about Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Temporary Standards, including what has changed, what remains the same, and what to expect as we enter the second half of 2021.

Can Employers Require Employees to be Vaccinated?

The first question many employers—and employees—have is: Can an employer require its employees to be fully-vaccinated and return to the workplace? The short answer is: Yes. There are three issues that employers need to be aware of—and in compliance with—to avoid litigation.

First, an employer cannot require an employee with a disability that prevents him or her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine to be vaccinated. Like any disability claim, the employer must engage in the interactive process to see if it can reasonably accommodate the employee.

Second, an employer must also reasonably accommodate an employee with sincerely-held religious beliefs or practices that prevent them from receiving the vaccination.

Third, the employer cannot retaliate against any employees who refuse to receive the vaccine because of a disability or sincerely-held religious belief.

What Has Changed?

A lot has changed for employees who have received both doses of one of the FDA-approved vaccines and waited the required amount of time for their body to build its immunity. The Tier system is gone. Facemasks are gone. Social-distancing is gone. And, for some employees, the ability to work remotely in your pajamas is gone.

Fully-vaccinated employees do not have to be tested or excluded from work after a close contact unless the employee displays COVID-19 symptoms.

Fully-vaccinated employees do not have to wear masks in outdoor settings unless there is an outbreak.

Fully-vaccinated employees will be required to wear a mask in settings such as classrooms, mass transit, or other places where masks are required for everyone (employees and non-employees), or in the event of an outbreak.

Employees, whether vaccinated or not, may choose to wear a facemask, and the Employer cannot retaliate against that/those employee(s) who choose to don a facemask.

Employers must document the vaccination status of fully-vaccinated employees if they do not wear a facemask indoors.

Employees who are not fully-vaccinated and exhibit COVID-19 symptoms must be offered testing by their employer. The employee must still receive their wages and be reimbursed for mileage if the employee drives his or her own vehicle (or reimbursement for the cost of public transportation) to the testing location.

Employees who are not fully-vaccinated may request respirators (facemasks) for voluntary use from their employers at no cost. Employers cannot retaliate against an employee who requests and/or uses a respirator (facemask).

In the case of Employer-provided housing and transportation are exempt from the guidelines requiring facemask and social-distancing for employees who are fully-vaccinated.

What Remains the Same?

Employers must still have a written COVID-19 Prevention Program that includes: (1) identifying and evaluating employee exposures to COVID-19 health hazards, (2) implementing effective policies and procedures to correct or remedy unsafe and unhealthy conditions, and (3) allowing adequate time for handwashing and cleaning frequently touched surfaces and objects (tables, countertops, keyboards, doorhandles, shared workspaces, etc.).

Employers must provide effective training and instruction to employees on how COVID-19 is spread, infection prevention techniques, and information regarding COVID-19-related benefits that affected employees may be entitled to under applicable federal, state, or local laws.

Employers must exclude employees who have COVID-19 symptoms and/or are not fully-vaccinated and have had a close contact with the workplace and, if that close contact is work-related, ensure continued wages.

A “close contact” is still defined as an employee who has been within six feet of a COVID-19 case for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or greater in any 24-hour period within or overlapping with the “high risk exposure period.”

A “high risk exposure period” is still for COVID-19 cases who develop COVID-19 symptoms, from two days before they first displayed symptoms until ten days after symptoms first appeared, and 24 hours passed with no fever, without the use of fever-reducing medications, and symptoms have improved. For those who are asymptomatic, from two days before until 10 days after the specimen for their first positive test for COVID-19 was collected.

How Does Labor Code §248.2 (2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law) Relate to the ETS ?

From January 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021, LC 248.2 requires employers with 26 or more employees to provide up to 80 hours of paid sick leave to employees unable to work or telework for the following reasons:

(1) Caring For Yourself: the covered employee is subject to a quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19 or has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine or is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and in the process of seeking a medical diagnosis.

(2) Caring For a Family Member: the covered employee is caring for a family member who is either subject to a quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19, has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine, or the employee is caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or unavailable due to COVID-19 on the premises.

(3) Vaccine-Related: the covered employee is attending a vaccine appointment or cannot work or telework due to vaccine-related side effects.

What Happens in the Event of COVID-19 Outbreak in the Workplace?

Employers must follow the requirements for testing and notifying public health departments of workplace outbreaks. (A “workplace outbreak” means three or more cases in an exposed workgroup in a 14-day period.)

In the event of an outbreak, facemasks are required regardless of employee vaccination status: (1) indoors, (2) outdoors when employees are less than six feet apart from another person.

Employers are required to offer COVID-19 testing at no cost during paid time to their employees who are not fully-vaccinated and had potential exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace, and provide the employees with information on benefits available to them.

Employers must contact the local health department immediately, but no longer than 48 hours after learning of three or more COVID-19 cases to obtain guidance on preventing the further spread of COVID-19 in the workplace.

Employers must maintain accurate records and track all COVID-19 cases, while ensuring that medical information remains confidential. These records (similar to employee personnel files and payroll records) must be made available to the employee or her representative, or as otherwise required by law, with personal identifying information redacted.

Employer must immediately report a COVID-19 serious illness or death to the nearest Cal/OSHA enforcement district office.

What Else Do Employer Need to Know Until the Next Set of Guidelines are Implemented?

Employers can require employees to submit proof of vaccination. According to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), this information does not run afoul the protections afforded to employees under HIPAA. However, under the ETS, an employer is not obligated to require employees to submit proof of being fully-vaccinated.

Acceptable options for Employers to maintain employee vaccination records include: (1) keeping a copy of the employee’s vaccination card on file, (2) maintain (and update) a list of employees who provided a copy of their vaccination card but did not give the employer a copy of the vaccination card, and (3) maintain a list of employees who self-attest to their being vaccinated.

If the workplace is inside a building or structure with natural or mechanical ventilation, or both, Employers should maximize as much as possible the quantity of outside air provided (subject to the EPA’s Air Quality rules in the event the natural air is polluted or would otherwise cause a hazard to employees).

If the workplace is controlled by the building owner, the employer needs to request that the building operator assist with compliance—the building owner’s employees are afforded the same protections as your employees.

What if an Employer Has a Question that was not Addressed?

Contact Schneiders & Associates LLP or call our offices at (805) 764-6370.

By: Christopher Correa, Esq.

Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Employee Handbooks

Posted on

There is no law that state that companies must have employee handbooks or how often an employee handbook should be updated. However, crafting an employee handbook and frequently reviewing and updating employee handbooks are good ideas once a company has more than two employees. In addition, employers may consider implementing an arbitration agreement within their employee handbook and obtain a signed receipt and acknowledgment form from each employee, showing receipt and understanding of the handbook.

On August 26, 2020, in the case of Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC. Et al., the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling invalidating an arbitration agreement contained within an employee handbook. Plaintiff employee Michael Conyer singed and acknowledged receipt of his employer’s, Hula Media Services, employee handbook. The signed acknowledgement read as follows:

“This is to acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Employee Handbook. This Handbook sets forth the terms and conditions of my employment as well as the right, duties, responsibilities and obligations of my employment with the Company. I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to read and familiarize myself with all of the provisions of the Handbook. I further understand and agree that I am bound by the provisions of the handbook. I understand the Company has the right to amend, modify, rescind, delete, supplement or add to the provisions of this Handbook, as it deems appropriate from time to time in its sole and absolute discretion.”

When Conyer was terminated two months later, he sued Hula for claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for unreimbursed business expenses. Hula filed a motion to move the case from court to an arbitrator pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the employee handbook. The trial court denied Hula’s motion and kept the case in court. Hula appealed the decision. Conyer argued that Hula never mentioned the arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal ruled that in California a party is bound by a contract even if he did not read the contract before signing it.

This case highlights the importance of frequently reviewing and updating employee handbooks and including employee receipt and acknowledgment forms. Employers can update any policy within their handbooks at any time without prior notice to employees. Revised versions of the handbook should be provided to all employees and a new signed receipt and acknowledgment obtained.  

The employment law attorneys at Schneiders & Associates, L.L.P. work with employers of all sizes to develop a tailored and specific employee handbook. Whether you are contemplating crafting an employee handbook for your business, or would like us to review or update your existing handbook, contact our office to request an Employee Handbook Questionnaire and to schedule an appointment to discuss your company’s policies and handbook needs.

By: Ted Schneider, Esq.

Important Issues to Consider When Setting Up Your Estate Plan

Posted on

Often estate planning focuses on the “big picture” issues, such as who gets what, whether a living trust should be created to avoid probate and tax planning to minimize gift and estate taxes. However, there are many smaller issues, which are just as critical to the success of your overall estate plan. Below are some of the issues that are often overlooked by clients and sometimes their attorneys. 

Cash Flow 
Is there sufficient cash? Estates incur operating expenses throughout the administration phase. The estate in California may have to pay federal estate taxes, filing fees, living expenses for a surviving spouse or other dependents, cover regular expenses to maintain assets held in the estate, and various legal expenses associated with settling the estate. 

Taxes 
How will taxes be paid? Although the estate may be small enough to avoid federal estate taxes, there are other taxes which must be paid. If the estate is earning income, it must pay income taxes until the estate is fully settled. Income taxes are paid from the liquid assets held in the estate; however, estate taxes could be paid by either the estate or from each beneficiary’s inheritance if the underlying assets are liquid. 

Assets 
What, exactly, is held in the estate? The owner of the estate certainly knows this information, but estate administrators, successor trustees and executors may not have certain information readily available. A notebook or list documenting what major items are owned by the estate should be left for the estate administrator. It should also include locations and identifying information, including serial numbers and account numbers. 

Creditors 
Your estate can’t be settled until all creditors have been paid. As with your assets, be sure to leave your estate administrator a document listing all creditors and account numbers. Be sure to also include information regarding where your records are kept, in the event there are disputes regarding the amount the creditor claims is owed. 

Beneficiary Designations 
Some assets are not subject to the terms of a will or trust. Instead, they are transferred directly to a beneficiary according to the instruction made on a beneficiary designation form. Bank accounts, life insurance policies, annuities, retirement plans, IRAs and most motor vehicles departments allow you to designate a beneficiary to inherit the asset upon your death. By doing so, the asset is not included in the probate estate and simply passes to your designated beneficiary by operation of law. 

Fund Your Living Trust 
Your probate-avoidance living trust will not keep your estate out of the probate court unless you formally transfer your assets into the trust. Only assets which are legally owned by the trust are subject to its terms. Title to your real property, vehicles, investments and other financial accounts should be transferred into the name of your living trust. 

If you have any questions regarding estate planning, please do not hesitate to contact an Estate Planning Attorney at Schneiders & Associates, LLP for advice and counsel.

By: Roy Schneider, Esq.

2021 COVID-19 SUPPLEMENTAL PAID SICK LEAVE UPDATE

Posted on

EFFECTIVE MARCH 29, 2021

  • Employees who work for Employers with more than 25 employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of Paid Sick Leave (PSL).
  • The Employee can make the request for PSL orally or in writing.
  • This leave is retroactive to January 1, 2021 and will run through September 30, 2021.
  • If an Employee took leave for COVID-related reasons prior to March 29, 2021, the employee should make an oral or written request to his or her employer for payment for up to 80 hours of work missed due to COVID-19.

Criteria to Qualify for the PSL:

If an employee is unable to work or work remotely, for any of the following reasons:

  1. Caring for the Herself or Himself. The employee is subject to quarantine or an isolation period related to COVID-19 as defined by an order or guideline of the California Department of Public Health, the CDC, or a local health officer with jurisdiction over the workplace, has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine, or is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis.
  2. Caring for a Family Member. The employee is caring for a family member who is subject to a COVID-19 quarantine or isolation period or has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine due to COVID-19, or is caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or unavailable due to COVID-19 on the premises.
  3. Vaccine Related. The employee is attending a vaccine appointment or cannot work or work remotely due to vaccine-related symptoms.

Which Employees Are Covered:

  • Full-Time Employees are entitled to 80 hours of leave.
    • Full-time firefighters might be entitled to more.
  • Part-Time Employees with varied schedules, 14 times the average number of hours worked per day for the past six months.
  • Rate of Pay for COVID-19 Supplemental PSL for non-exempt (hourly) employees must be the highest of the following for each hour of leave:
    • Regular pay for the workweek in which leave is taken.
    • State minimum wage.
    • Local minimum wage.
    • Average hourly pay for preceding 90 days (not including OT)
  • Exempt Employees must be paid the same rate of pay as wages calculated for other paid leave time.

An Employer may not retaliate or discriminate against any employee requesting leave under the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave.

For more information about your specific business, please contact Labor and Employment attorneys Ted Schneider and Christopher Correa at (805) 764-6370.

Attorney Leroy Smith Joins Schneiders & Associates!

Posted on

Schneiders & Associates is pleased to announce that Leroy Smith joined the firm as Of Counsel. Mr. Smith served as the County Counsel for the County of Ventura from July 2010 until his retirement from County service in October 2020. As County Counsel, Mr. Smith was the chief civil law officer of the county and provided legal advice and representation to the Board of Supervisors, all county officers and departments, and to related special districts and agencies. He managed the work of 25 full-time attorneys and an office budget of 6 million dollars, and personally acted as general counsel at the public meetings of the Board of Supervisors and to the Ventura County Civil Grand Jury.

Legal Experience

Mr. Smith has deep experience providing legal opinions and advice to public entities and their governing bodies, including compliance with all relevant procedural laws such as the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act; the Government Claims Act and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.  He has substantial experience and expertise in drafting and reviewing contracts, resolutions, ordinances and similar documents.

As to substantive legal issues, Mr. Smith has experience and expertise providing advice and/or litigation services on virtually every issue that might confront municipalities and other local public agencies, including land use (CEQA issues), local coastal plans, coastal zoning ordinances, non-coastal zoning ordinances, affordable housing, harbor and airport regulations, regulations of short-term vacation rentals, legalization of cannabis and hemp cultivation and sales, agricultural commissioner regulations, public works projects, prevailing wage laws, environmental health and solid waste regulations, air pollution control board procedures and permitting, water and sanitation districts, groundwater management agencies, tax agreements, annexations to and reorganizations of local agencies, property tax assessments and assessment appeals, health care and hospital operations, emergency services, public health orders, code enforcement, election laws and initiative proceedings, fire protection, oil and gas regulations, public conservatorships and mental health, law enforcement and civil rights claims, public employee pensions, union recognition disputes and collective bargaining, employee discipline processes, discrimination and harassment claims, fire protection and juvenile dependency disputes.

Mr. Smith will be part of the firm’s municipal, government, land use and real estate practices. Welcome, Leroy!

Meal Period Timekeeping – California Supreme Court says “No” to Rounding?

Posted on

Many employers use rounding to adjust an employee’s work hours to the nearest whole time increment, such as five or ten minutes. Employers beware! However, in a newly published decision, timekeeping rounding must not apply to meal periods.

California employers must provide employees with a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period that begins no later than the end of the fifth hour of work. If an employee is not provided the timely and uninterrupted meal period, the employee is due one hour of premium pay.

In the case of Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court ruled against an employer’s timekeeping practice of rounding meal period timeclock punches. The Court further held noncompliant meal periods results in a rebuttable presumption of liability against the employer at the summary judgment stage.

AMN used an electronic timekeeping system to track employees’ compensable time. Employees used their computers to punch in and out at the beginning and end of lunch. Employees could also ask to manually adjust any inaccurate time punches, such as forgetting to clock out for lunch. The computer system automatically rounded employee time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment.

The Supreme Court used the following example to illustrate how AMN recorded meal break punches:

“[I]f an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 a.m. and clocked in after lunch at 11:25 a.m., [AMN’s timekeeping software] would have recorded the time punches as 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Although the actual meal period was 23 minutes, [AMN’s timekeeping software] would have recorded the meal period as 30 minutes.” Another example is if an employee clocked in for work at 6:59 a.m. and clocked out for lunch at 12:04 p.m., the system would record those time punches as 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. In this example, the employee would have begun their meal period after five hours and five minutes of work, but the timekeeping system would not have recorded that violation.

The California Supreme Court ruled that it is the employer’s responsibility to implement compliant meal period policies that allow employees to take the full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal period without reduction of any kind, including from neutral rounding timekeeping practices.

Further, an employer’s timekeeping policy must ensure that the employee being relieved from duty for a 30-minute meal period is accurately reflected in the employer’s time records.

Employers using rounding systems should consult with legal counsel before continuing such practice. If you have questions about your business’s rounding or timekeeping policies and procedures and would like to determine if your practices comply with the Supreme Court’s decision and applicable law, contact Schneiders & Associates, L.L.P. to speak with an employment law expert.  

By: Ted Schneider, Esq.