Below is a great article from the Fresno Bee regarding a local Law Firm that is making a living off of suing Trucking companies.  They even brag that they have 3 more lawsuits pending.  If you have trucks (one or a hundred) you should be award of these lawsuits and be talking to your attorney before you are put in this spot.


Word reached us this morning that a Federal Judge has ruled against the recent changes to the Federal Overtime Exemption and Salary rules including the new minimum of $47,476 per  year for Federal Salary exempt employees .  This rule would have been higher than the California rule of twice the minimum wage, which, in a 40 hour workweek would come to around $42,000 per year.  Please read the article below, but understand that some states including California have rules over and above the Federal law.  When State law is more favorable to the employee than Federal law, the State law takes precedents and you must follow it.  Here is the article:

 Federal Overtime Rules on Hold
Tuesday afternoon, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on the Department of Labor’s new overtime rules, which were slated to go into effect in just over a week on December 1, 2016. The judge ruled that the Department of Labor (DOL) likely overstepped its rulemaking authority by raising the salary threshold as high as it did and by implementing the automatic increase every three years. What this means now:

  1. The effective date of the rules has been delayed indefinitely.
  2. Employers may choose not to implement the changes they had planned for Dec. 1 compliance.
  3. The new rules have not been thrown out or invalidated – at least not yet.

The judge has not made a final ruling in the case, but the fact that he issued the injunction suggests that he is leaning in favor of the groups that want to stop the rule changes. It is also possible that his final decision will allow some parts of the rule to stand but not others. The DOL has indicated that in the meantime they are considering their legal options with respect to the preliminary injunction. Employers are obviously wondering whether they should move forward with the changes they have been planning. Unfortunately, this is a difficult question to answer and ultimately a business decision, which is much harder than a compliance decision. Although employers are not required to make changes, they may want to consider the following:

  • Will it hurt the bottom line to make the changes? If so, how much?
  • Will it be difficult to undo changes that have already been made?
  • How will employees feel about the decision? Did they like the changes? Hate the changes?
  • Is the new pay structure better than what is in place now?
  • If the changes aren’t implemented now, will it be possible to make them on short notice in the future?

At this point, we do not know how long the injunction will be in place or if the rules will be thrown out entirely. We will be keeping an extremely close eye on this case and will issue further e-Alerts when actionable information is made available.



California has been dealing with Prop. 65 (notice of possible Cancer causing items in use).  Well, recently we were hoping that this bill, which has been a boon to California lawyers, would be pruned and made more practical.  Instead, they have made it much tougher for almost every employer in California beginning in 2018.  There are over 800 chemicals on the present list.  Here is the list:  https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list .   Beginning in 2018, the old sign stating that “chemicals known to cause cancer” that  you see everywhere from every restaurant and hospital to gas stations to ball parks, will now require a sign that lists all chemicals in use at any facility.  That means barber shops to dairy farms will need to have this list posted in plain view for all people entering the property.

On its face this is absurd.  This is another example of politicians trying to show people how they are protecting us, when the reality is that no one pays attention or reads it.  As proof, how many people really read the required postings by every employer near their time clock or break room?  It is another venue for lawyers to file lawsuits against employers while not protecting anyone.

You can read a very good article regarding this story from  Joseph Perrone in the Fresno Bee.   Here is the link: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article114970193.html

While we have time, the recent elections do not give us much hope that any sanity will return to the California State Legislature.  However, with people starting to campaign for the Governor position in 2  years, I would suggest that anytime you are confronted by any of these aspiring politicians, you ask them their stance on this issue and why.  It may provide some attention and action to make this proposition more practical.



Employers: Current Form I-9 valid until Jan. 21, 2017

On Aug. 25, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. USCIS must publish a revised form by Nov. 22, 2016. Employers may continue using the current version of Form I-9 with a revision date of 03/08/2013 N until Jan. 21, 2017. After Jan. 21, 2017, all previous versions of Form I-9 will be invalid.

HR Mobile Services, Inc. has been working on this topic since last year when we knew we were coming close to the expiration date for the I-9 form.  Apparently, even though that date has been on the form for years, the US government is still allowed to be 8 months late to do their job……But you don’t.

Anyway, please be assured that if you are a HR Mobile, Inc. client, we will be replacing the I-9 form as quickly as possible in all of our new-hire packets as soon as it is available.  This will not happen immediately in all cases, but will definitely be completed before the January 21, 2017 deadline.  We will also be including any late changes to the laws based on the election or other late changes that are part of the year-end processes across the country.  For some states that could be a change to minimum wages, sick pay or drug policies among other things.  As always, if you have a question, please call our office.  We may be calling you as well in certain circumstances to ask or clarify how you want to deal with a new law.

Good Luck to everyone as we enter an interesting 2017.