A Possible Landmine for Employers: The Opportunity to Work Act
Review employment legislation, such as the Opportunity to Work Act proposed by the California Legislature. While efforts so far have been unsuccessful, it is important for businesses to understand how such legislation can impact them given that their ultimate passage could simply be a matter of time.
June 26, 2017 at 02:33 PM
7 minute read
Imagine that your receptionist will be out for several months or an employee just quit. Now imagine that before you place a call to a staffing company to find a temporary receptionist or begin interviewing candidates to replace the employee who just quit, you would have to first offer every qualified part-time employee the opportunity to work additional hours. As unworkable as this may sound, this is what the California Legislature proposed in the Opportunity to Work Act (Assembly Bill 5, OWA).
Employers in San Francisco and San Jose may not think this is a big deal, because both cities already have ordinances imposing similar requirements (San Francisco effective on July 3, 2015 and San Jose on March 13, 2017). The author of the OWA even modeled the bill after the San Jose ordinance, but took it much further in the OWA. While these city ordinances have a limited geographic scope, apply only to large employers, or target specific industries, the OWA has no such restrictions. Instead, the OWA would apply to any employer in California, regardless of industry, with 10 or more employees. While it appears the OWA will not survive the legislative process this year, it may return in future years. We need to look no further than the recent efforts to enact predictable scheduling legislation, which would require employers to provide advance notice of work schedules, to see that we likely have not seen the end of the OWA. In 2015 and 2016—after several cities enacted similar ordinances—the California Legislature made several efforts to enact predictable scheduling legislation, and while efforts so far have been unsuccessful, it is important for businesses to understand how such legislation can impact them given that their ultimate passage could simply be a matter of time.
Increased administrative burden and cost. In addition to identifying which employees are qualified to perform certain jobs, the OWA would impose on employers the burden of coordinating complex schedules. There are many employers whose full-time non-exempt employees are scheduled to work fewer than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. For example, an employer whose full-time non-exempt employees work seven hours a day and 35 hours a week would have to offer up to one hour a day to up to 40 different employees. With all of the demands placed on human resource professionals, it may be necessary for companies to expand their HR departments (after offering those hours to qualified employees first of course).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAdvocacy Groups Press White House for Answers on Pay Data Disclosure Changes
4 minute readEEOC Nominees Are Questioned About Workplace Sexual-Orientation Discrimination
4 minute readPeter Robb, Trump's Pick for NLRB General Counsel, Is Poised to Pivot Board
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250