California courts have long recognized the “coming and going rule,” which is that employees are outside the scope of their employment during their daily commute.  However, a recent case is re-examining the rule.  In Lobo v. Tamco, an employee collided with a police officer on the employee’s commute home.  The officer died, and the officer’s family brought a wrongful death suit against the employer, arguing that the employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred. At the trial court level, the employer successfully argued the “coming and going rule.”

It is common knowledge throughout California workplaces that non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime if they work more than eight hours in a day or over forty hours in a week, and that employees earn “time and a half” or “double time” for overtime hours worked.  However, some employers run into problems in determining the rate of pay which is ultimately multiplied by 1.5 or doubled.   The rule in California is that the regular rate of pay must include all remuneration from the employer.

In virtually every line of work, computers are a necessity.  It has become difficult to even imagine a workplace without a computer.  Yet whether computers are a “necessity” or a “necessary evil” varies from business to business.  Thus, many employers create policies governing the use of office computers and access to the Internet.

Employers of course have the power to restrict certain activities of their employees at the workplace.  But what about restricting activities of employees after the work day has ended?  An employer can surely mandate that an employee may not smoke at his or her desk.  But what about prohibiting an employee from smoking anywhere?  What if the employer is motivated by a desire to keep the employee healthy, or to reduce company health insurance costs?

Last month’s article discussed drug testing of job applicants.  This article addresses random drug testing of current employees.  “Random” drug testing programs are those where an employer informs employees that they may have to submit to drug testing at any time during their employment, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

No employer wants to conduct a drug or alcohol test of an employee.  And while such instances are rare, there are times when a business has no choice but to do so.  This article will outline some important requirements pertaining to drug tests of job applicants.  Next month’s article will discuss drug testing of current employees.

Whether they work in the fields or at a construction site, many Visalia employees work outdoors.  Employers may not be aware that there are certain rules that apply to outdoor employees.  If you have employees that work outside, then your business is covered by the California Heat Illness Prevention Regulations.

From time to time, virtually all employees are asked to dip into their own pockets for legitimate business needs.  This may take form of filling up the employee’s car with gas after a long drive to meet with a client, or buying office supplies at Staples.  How many of you reading this article have asked an employee to pick up a birthday cake or flowers for another employee?  So when employees do use their own funds for business needs, what is the obligation of the employer?

 As far as dress goes, the modern workplace is becoming more and more casual.  Suits, ties, and other formal apparel are often the exception at work, rather than the rule.  Yet virtually all businesses, especially those where face-to-face customer/client interaction is required, want employees to look their best.  As such, California law allows for reasonable requirements concerning employee dress and grooming.  There are, however, restrictions.

Employers walk a fine line when it comes to disciplining their employees.  On the one hand, employers want to give their employees the opportunity to improve performance problems.  On the other, employers want to make sure that they don’t alter the “at-will” employment relationship and create problems if the employee is unable to improve.  And straddling this line is the “progressive discipline” policy.