296 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com LC § Description Penalty basis for layoffs. Contractors must also identify employees not retained and reason therefore, to place them on preferential hiring list. Contractors must give each retained employee a written performance evaluation at end of 60 days. If the evaluation is satisfactory, then the contractors must offer continued employment, which may be at will. 1703 Talent services contracts. Contracts between an artist and a talent service must contain certain provisions (e.g., description of services to be performed, duration of the contract) to protect the artist. Unclear 1703.4 Prohibited acts by talent services agencies. Agencies must not make unsupported advertisements or representations about auditions or other employment opportunities for artists, must not charge an artist for an audition or employment opportunity, must not charge artists other than certain specified fees, and must not own, operate, or have a financial interest in a talent listing service. A talent listing service shall not have a financial interest in a talent service agency, shall not list an opportunity without permission, shall maintain a copy of all listings, and shall not make advertisements or representations suggesting affiliation with a talent service agency. Unclear 7.26 Criminal Penalties As occasionally indicated above, Labor Code provisions often, if not typically, provide for misdemeanor penalties (fines and imprisonment) for any willful violation.623 Criminal penalties can apply even for neglecting to comply with certain provisions of the Labor Code or with any order or ruling of the Industrial Welfare Commission.624 1 See, e.g., Aguilar v. Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, 234 Cal. App. 3d 21, 34-35 (1991). 2 Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575, 592 (2000); see generally Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal. 4th 785, 795 (1999) (“IWC’s wage orders, although at times patterned after federal regulations, also sometimes provide greater protection than is provided under federal law in the Fair Labor Standards Act”); see, e.g., Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1524, 1535 n.10 (2008) (noting DLSE’s refusal to defer to federal authority analyzing whether on-call time is “hours worked” because, under California law, “the existence of an agreement regarding the understanding of the parties (as to the compensation policy) is of no importance. The ultimate consideration in applying the California law is determining the extent of the control exercised.’’) (cleaned up). 3 DLSE Opinion Letter 1994.02.03-3 at 2 (contrasting federal and California definitions of “hours worked” and noting that California has not enacted the Portal-to-Portal Act). 4 Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 45 Cal. 4th 634, 645 (2009). 5 IWC v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 3d 690 (1980) (upholding 1980 Wage Orders). 6 Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court (Adam Hohnbaum), 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1027 (2012). 7 Miles v. City of Los Angeles, 56 Cal. App. 5th 728 (2020). 8 Lab. Code § 1182.12. 9 Id. 10 Lab. Code § 1194.2(a). 11 Lab. Code § 1194.2(b). 12 Lab. Code § 1197.1(a). 13 Lab. Code § 1199(b). 14 See DLSE Enforcement and Policies Manual § 47.7 (2002); DLSE Opinion Letter 2002.01.29.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4