COVID-19 and a New Hire’s Expired Identity Document

10 Aug

HRWatchdog  August 3, 2020

We just hired an employee who doesn’t have a current identity document. Her driver license expired on April 1, and she says that she hasn’t been able to renew it due to COVID-19. Can we hire her?

Yes. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a temporary policy beginning on May 1, 2020, that allows an identity document with an expiration date on or after March 1, 2020, to be accepted for I-9 purposes.

DHS issued this policy due to COVID-19 closure of offices or reduced services that prevented individuals from renewing documents.

Identity documents for I-9 purposes include a driver license, federal- or state-issued identification card with identifying information and a photograph, or a school identification card with a photograph.

If the employee’s identity document expired on or after March 1, 2020, and the document expiration date has been extended by the issuing agency due to COVID-19, then it may be used as a List B document.

Adding Note

The expired document should be entered under Section 2 on the Form I-9 and “COVID-19” should be added to the Additional Information section. Employers also may attach to the Form I-9 a copy of the webpage or other notice indicating that the document has been extended.

The employee has 90 days after the DHS terminates this temporary policy to obtain and present a current document. When the employee obtains a new document, enter the new document’s number and expiration date in the Additional Information field, initial and date the change.

Confirm State Extensions

Employers can confirm that a state has automatically extended the expiration date of its state IDs and driver licenses by checking the state motor vehicle administration websites.

Information on the California Department of Motor Vehicles extension for driver licenses may be found here.

The DHS will continue to monitor the ongoing COVID-19 national emergency and will provide updated guidance as needed. Employers may check for current updates by going to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website.

California Businesses Considering Furloughs v. Layoffs Again

Matthew J. Roberts, Esq.  August 4, 2020 Cal Chamber

Nearly five months have passed since California Governor Gavin Newsom issued his initial shelter-in-place order. In March, many California businesses were left facing difficult choices due to potential losses in revenue and uncertainty in the future, and, as a result, began evaluating their options, including furloughs and layoffs.

As California eased into a phased reopening plan, businesses began to reopen and recall their workforces. However, California has seen a surge in COVID-19 cases and paused or even rolled back its reopening. Now, many employers are left with the same question from March: How do we handle our workforce while trying to preserve our business?

A common question the CalChamber Labor Law Helpline continues to receive from our members is whether there’s a difference between furloughing and laying off employees. Essentially, a furloughed employee remains an employee on the books but with reduced or eliminated work hours, while a layoff generally means a complete severance of employment.

An issue in March still exists today — under the current circumstances, the California Labor Commissioner may see no real difference between a temporarily furloughed employee without any work hours and a laid off employee. In a pair of opinion letters, the Labor Commissioner stated that if an employer reduces an employee’s scheduled work hours to zero — and doesn’t reschedule that employee within the same pay period — the employer has effectively laid off the employee which triggers the final pay requirements under Labor Code section 201.

In addition to final pay concerns, if an employer with 75 or more employees ends up “furloughing” or “laying off” 50 or more employees from a single location, it may trigger California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (CalWARN) notice requirements. Although the notice requirements generally apply to mass layoffs, in recent years, California courts have held that there’s no minimum length of time for a mass furlough or temporary mass layoff to trigger CalWARN requirements (The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, et al. v. NASSCO Holdings, Inc., 17 Cal.App.5th 1105 (2017)). However, even if a mass furlough or layoff triggers the CalWARN requirements, the traditional notice and timing requirements have been temporarily modified since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Finally, an employer has different responsibilities when recalling or rehiring employers after either a furlough or layoff. If the employee was furloughed with the understanding that the employee remained employed during that time, employers won’t need to initiate the new hire process. But, businesses will need a legitimate business reason for choosing not to recall a furloughed employee. If the employee was laid off with the understanding that the employment relationship ended, the employer will need to go through the new hire process with that employee. Because of the rollercoaster nature of the California’s reopening protocols, it’s important that employers keep in close contact with their legal counsel to make sure they’re appropriately handling their workforce and other employment issues arising from COVID-19.

Labor Commissioner’s Office Files Lawsuits against Uber and Lyft for Engaging in Systemic Wage Theft

Oakland — The Labor Commissioner’s Office has filed separate lawsuits against transportation companies Uber and Lyft for committing wage theft by misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Uber and Lyft have misclassified their drivers, which has deprived these workers of a host of legal protections in violation of California labor law, the lawsuits say.

The goal of the lawsuits is to enforce California labor laws and to ensure that drivers are not misclassified as independent contractors. In 2018, the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex ruling established the “ABC test” for determining whether a worker is an employee under various California labor laws. Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, extended the ABC test to additional California labor laws. Under the ABC test, workers are considered employees unless they are free from control from the hiring entity, perform work outside of the hiring entity’s usual business, and engage in an independently established trade or occupation.

The lawsuits seek to recover amounts owed to all of Uber’s and Lyft’s drivers, including the nearly 5,000 drivers who have filed claims for owed wages with the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Moreover, the lawsuits seek recovery for a wider range of statutory violations and damages than those asserted in individual wage claims and other lawsuits.

“The Uber and Lyft business model rests on the misclassification of drivers as independent contractors,” said California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower. “This leaves workers without protections such as paid sick leave and reimbursement of drivers’ expenses, as well as overtime and minimum wages.”

The lawsuits allege that by misclassifying workers, Uber and Lyft failed to meet their obligations as employers as required by California labor law—including to pay drivers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, to pay overtime compensation, to provide paid rest periods, to reimburse drivers for the cost of all equipment and supplies needed to perform their work and for work-related personal vehicle mileage. The suits also allege the companies failed to provide paid sick leave, to provide accurate itemized wage deduction statements, to timely pay all wages owed during and upon separation of employment, and to provide notice of employment-related information required by law.

The lawsuits, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, ask the court to order Uber and Lyft to stop misclassifying their employees and provide the protections available to all employees under the Labor Code. The suits also seek the recovery of unpaid wages, penalties and interest as well as civil penalties and any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the Labor Commissioner’s Office.  

The Labor Commissioner’s Office estimates that Uber and Lyft each employ more than 100,000 drivers. Amounts collected by the Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages, liquidated damages owed to workers, penalties owed to workers, and reimbursement of business expenses owed to workers, will be distributed to all drivers who worked for Uber or Lyft during the time period covered by this lawsuit, not just to those drivers who filed individual claims with the Labor Commissioner.

The California Labor Commissioner’s Office combats wage theft and unfair competition by investigating allegations of illegal and unfair business practices. The Labor Commissioner’s Office has launched an interdisciplinary outreach campaign, “Reaching Every Californian.” The campaign amplifies basic protections and builds pathways to impacted populations so that workers and employers understand workplace protections, obligations and how to ensure compliance with these laws.   Employees with work-related questions or complaints may contact DIR’s Call Center in English or Spanish at 844-LABOR-DIR (844-522-6734).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: