• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Cabada Hameed LLP

Employment and Business Litigation Lawyers based in Southern California

  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search

California DLSE Revises Wage Theft Prevention Act Notice and FAQs

April 16, 2012 //  by Sayema Hameed//  Leave a Comment

by Sayema Hameed

On April 12, 2012, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) issued revised FAQs regarding the new California Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011.  The DLSE also issued a revised Notice template for use by employers.  The Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011, which adds Section 2810.5 to the California Labor Code, went into effect January 1, 2012.  The law requires all employers to provide non-exempt employees, at the time of hire, a written notice that contains specific employment information.

The written notice to employees must include the following information:

√ The employer’s rate(s) of pay and how the employee will be paid (salary, hourly, commission);
√ The rates for overtime (simply stating the multiplier for overtime (e.g., 1½ and/or double the regular rate) is not sufficient);
√ Any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, including meal or lodging allowances;
√ The employer’s regular payday;
√ The employer’s name, including any fictitious business names under which it operates;
√ The employer’s physical and mailing addresses; and
√ Contact information for the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier.

 The California Labor Commissioner’s revised notice template, for use by employers to comply with this notice requirement, and frequently asked questions are available here: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Governor_signs_Wage_Theft_Protection_Act_of_2011.html

FAQ #10 explains that the notice template has been updated to indicate that a worker is not required to sign the notice (the Acknowledgment of Receipt section of the notice template is optional).  An employer is simply obligated to ensure that the employment and wage-related information on the notice provided to the employee is accurate and complete.

FAQ #21 clarifies that the notice requirement “has nothing to do with ‘at will’ employment in California”; in other words, this notice requirement has no effect on the right of an employer and employee to terminate employment with or without cause at any time (absent an employment agreement that states otherwise).

Notably, FAQ #27 explains that an employer who used the previous notice template is not required to issue a new notice to employees until there is a substantive change in the provided information. Employers who used the previous notice template are in compliance with Labor Code Section 2810.5 as long as the employment information provided in earlier notice remains the same.

If there is a substantive change in the information previously provided on an old template, then the employer must use the newest notice to communicate such change within 7 calendar days of such change.  All new hires after April 11, 2012 should be provided notice via the newest notice template on the DLSE website.

Category: NewsTag: DLSE, wage theft

Previous Post: « EEOC Issues Final Rule on “Reasonable Factors Other than Age” Under the ADEA
Next Post: California Supreme Court’s Brinker Decision Clarifies Employers’ Obligations Regarding Meal and Rest Breaks »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • News
  • Press
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • May 2022
  • February 2021
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • March 2019
  • December 2018
  • December 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • February 2014
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • September 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2009
  • May 2008

Connect

           

Tags

#MeToo Abercrombie anti-discrimination arbitration arbitration agreement baby bonding California california employment law CFRA coronavirus COVID-19 credit report DFEH disability discrimination DLSE EDD EEOC employee employer employment contract employment discrimination employment law entertainment family medical leave FEHA FMLA gender expression gender identity harassment healthcare hijab independent contractor meal break NLRB paid family leave pandemic pregnancy disability leave religion religious discrimination sex discrimination sexual harassment Sick Leave Law small business social media wrongful termination

Copyright © 2023 Cabada Hameed LLP· · Sitemap · <a href"/disclaimer/" Disclaimer Log in