This article originally appeared in Healthcare News on August 6, 2019.

The California Supreme Court’s 2018 landmark decision, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Dynamex), redefines the employment relationship between entities and workers in California and creates one of the most stringent standards in the United States for classifying workers as independent contractors.

Applying the changes introduced by Dynamex can present significant complications in many industries. This is especially true for the health care industry due to California’s prohibition of corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) and its associated rules. For example, the state requires hospitals to have physicians available during all hours of hospital operation, while, at the same time, generally prohibiting hospitals from hiring physicians directly.

Due to these complexities, many California health care entities may benefit from examining the potentially sweeping impacts of this new interpretation of the law and determining near- and long-term methods for making necessary changes to their hiring and retention policies. Following is an in-depth overview of the potential implications for health care employers and how those in the health care industry will likely need to respond.
Continue Reading Unintended Consequences: Dynamex and California Health Care Employers

On June 14, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued an important decision clarifying whether and when an employer may lawfully exclude union organizers from its privately owned public spaces. Under then extant Board caselaw, where an employer had invited the public to enter or use space on its private property, the employer could not lawfully exclude union organizers from entering and using that same “public space” because that exclusion was considered to be unlawful discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act). The Board’s decision in UPMC, 368 NLRB No. 2, rejects this generalized “public area” doctrine, redefines what is and isn’t unlawful discrimination for the purposes of determining a union’s right of access to an employer’s public spaces and, broadens employer’s legal options under the NLRA. 
Continue Reading NLRB Limits Union Access Rights to “Public Spaces” of Employers

Tax-exempt employers have a special opportunity to fix compliance concerns with their 403(b) retirement plans. They have through March 31, 2020 – the “Remedial Amendment Period” (RAP) – to retroactively self-correct compliance issues with their 403(b) plan documents, without going through the IRS’ more costly and time-consuming process that would normally be required. An overview of this opportunity is below.
Continue Reading For Tax-Exempt Employers: 403(b) Retirement Plan Compliance Opportunity

On December 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in Gerard, et al. v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, affirming the Court of Appeal ruling that voluntary meal period waivers are permissible for healthcare employees who work long shifts, even if they work more than 12 hours. By allowing healthcare employees to waive one of their two meal periods, the Gerard decision preserves a choice for employees who work 12-hour shifts. They continue to have the flexibility to work shifts that span 12 ½ hours with one 30-minute meal period or shifts that span 13 hours and include two 30-minute meal periods.

Sheppard Mullin argued this case before the California Supreme Court and has represented Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center in the case since 2008.

Not only was this case hard fought throughout California courts for 10 years, but it also involved novel legislative action. Notably, it was the only wage-hour victory for an employer before the California Supreme Court in 2018.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Confirms Validity Of Meal Period Waivers For Healthcare Employees

Originally Posted on the Sheppard Mullin Labor and Employment Blog on June 6, 2018.

In an effort to curb workplace violence against healthcare workers, The Joint Commission, a national healthcare accreditation body, recently issued seven actions healthcare organizations are encouraged to implement.
Continue Reading Health Care Organizations Take Notice: The Joint Commission Issues Recommendations to Stem Workplace Violence

As you may have seen in our recent article on the Labor and Employment Law Blog, the California Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. (The full text of the Dynamex decision can be found here.) In its ruling, the Court establishes a standard that makes it extremely difficult for companies (or individuals) in California to properly classify their workers as independent contractors.
Continue Reading Healthcare Industry Companies Must Be Wary of Classifying Any Workers As Independent Contractors, In Light of the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex Ruling

Recently, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Home Care Association of America, et al. v. Weil, that the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) regulations about the inapplicability of certain statutory exemptions for third-party employers of home care workers are enforceable and that the federal minimum wage and overtime rules will apply to these types of home care workers. As a result, unless the Rule’s application is stopped or otherwise delayed, those acting in the home care industry need to be aware of changes soon to take effect, and employers in particular must be ready to meet their new obligations, as of October 15, 2015.
Continue Reading Home Care Associations Seek Stay by SCOTUS of New Wage-and-Hour Rules, As the Effective Date of DOL Wage-and-Hour Regulations Quickly Approaches