Release agreements often require the employee to maintain the confidentiality of all aspects of the transaction, including sometimes the underlying factual assertions. These provisions must be in line with the restrictions of the new federal and regional laws. Other rules are not new. For example, by law, employers generally cannot compromise on the rights to unpaid wages which, admittedly, correspond to the workers owed. The release of federal rights for age discrimination must be consistent with the detailed rules of federal law. There are also issues that do not apply only to labour law, such as the release of unknown rights. B the applicability of competition restrictions, the choice of legal provisions and much more. The applicants assert that “wages actually due and unpaid” are disputed salaries when they are ultimately deemed due. In other words, the complainants assert that any resolution of an overtime compensation dispute is contrary to Sections 206.5 and 1194. Because of this unique procedural attitude, employers` enterprises do not necessarily have to worry that individual comparisons with former workers lead the same workers to take legal action against ADG representatives. In most cases, these former employees are prescribed under the current prescribed limitation period and/or have not exhausted their administrative notification requirement to make such claims a timely basis. Individual accounts with current employees, particularly in the context of resolving compliance issues, pose greater challenges for employers to exclude a subsequent PAGA fee.
Employers must develop creative transaction agreement provisions and/or mechanisms to find a new way to achieve a complete closure without the OFA representation action being authorized. In the end, of course, the best protection for employers is to take proactive steps to ensure a compliant employment policy and practice, particularly in the areas of wages and hours. Like any contract, a release should be supported by a new valid consideration. An unlocking agreement should recognize that the worker is not entitled to the amount paid. The agreement should also establish that all wages earned have been or will be paid in order to avoid subsequent entitlements to unpaid wages. Another new California law prohibits any provision of a settlement agreement that prevents a party from testifying about criminal behavior or sexual harassment in administrative, legislative or judicial proceedings, so the agreement should expressly state that nothing in the agreement limits such testimony. In a decision on June 10, 2009, the California Supreme Court refused to reconsider an appeals court decision allowing an employer to directly label wages and hours in California with current and former employees, while the same rights were pending in a class action. Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, 171 Cal.App.4th 796 (2009), rejected reconsideration request, No. S171864, 2009 Cal. LEXIS – (June 10, 2009). However, this decision will not give employers the right to pay rights directly on the basis of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which has been interpreted as prohibiting employers from obtaining overtime and minimum wage applications directly from their employees.
What this means for employers: standard comparison agreements should be revised so as not to naturally include the non-rehire language. HR and other staff responsible for overseeing transaction negotiations should be responsible for the appropriate circumstances for the inclusion of such a language. Mr. Chindarah went on to argue that a good faith dispute over old overtime pay could not be resolved, as the right to overtime pay under Section 1194 could not be waived.