California Bans Two Questions on Employment Applications
The Golden State has long been one of the most worker-friendly when it comes to everything from minimum wage to paid time off. California continues to roll out employee protections in 2018, prohibiting employers from including questions regarding salary history or criminal convictions on applications, or even inquiring during job interviews.
And these are just two major changes California employers need to be aware of in the coming year. Here’s what you need to know for your small business.
Along with education and work experience, salary history might be one of the most common application questions, and it can be an insidious one. Employers have been known to pass on applicants with high expectations, or use a candidate’s past of low pay as an excuse to limit future compensation. Well no longer. It’s now unlawful to ask applicants, directly or indirectly, about prior compensation or benefits, and “[a]n employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant.”
Ban the Box
Applications have almost always also included a question about a candidate’s criminal past. But thanks to California’s “Ban the Box” law, employers may no longer ask about applicants’ conviction history on employment applications. Nor may they inquire into, or consider that history before making a conditional offer of employment. And while employers can seek that information after a conditional offer, those who intend to deny an applicant a position “solely or in part because of the applicant’s conviction history” are required to “make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job.”
And if they haven’t already, California employers will want to review their current wage scales. The state’s Fair Pay Act has been aggressively enforced over the last year, so you’ll want to ensure that male, female, white, and racial and ethnic minority employees are being paid similar wages for “substantially similar work.” And the burden is on the employer to justify any gaps.
Interesting Lawsuit of the Month- Red Bull Doesn’t Actually ‘Give You Wings’
If you have ever had a can of the energy drink, Red Bull, and were upset to learn that the drink didn’t actually “give you wings”, as the company’s marketing slogan suggests. You are not alone. The company has been accused of making false and misleading advertising claims.
The suit says that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like “wings” and “boost” to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
The suit was brought by a Plaintiff who said he had been drinking the product since 2002 but had seen no improvement in his performance.
As for Red Bull, the company says it “maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability.”
However, as we have come to expect with most lawsuits such as this, the plaintiffs’ seek a significant “boost” with a big payday, however, are often times “let down” in the end.
Quote of the Month
“Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.” -Thomas Edison