Managing Workplace Flexibility in California

Overview

The benefits of workplace flexibility, such as enhanced employee morale, improved employee attendance, increased productivity, and improved recruiting and retention, are well documented, and employers are increasingly implementing flexible work arrangements. However, California and its often unique employment laws may pose a challenge to employers. Consequently, employers should exercise caution implementing any flexible work arrangement and consider the limitations that California law imposes on workplace flexibility.

Most flexible work arrangements provide flexibility in terms of either when the work is performed (i.e., schedule flexibility) or where the work is performed (i.e., location flexibility). California law affects both, and this toolkit is organized around those two broad areas.

This discussion revolves mainly around the specific ways in which California law differs from federal law. Various sections of this treatment direct the reader to more generalized resources on various subtopics for more background. However, the California specifics always need to be taken into account in applying any general information.

For general information on workplace flexibility, see  Managing Flexible Work Arrangements.

Employers should remember that the provisions of the California Labor Code do not uniformly apply to all industries and positions. There are 17 Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders that may apply specific rules to an individual industry or position. Employers should always check the respective wage order for an industry or position in addition to reviewing the Labor Code or consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance.

See Flexible Work Arrangements in California Present Unique Challenges.

Schedule Flexibility

Flexible work arrangements involving schedule flexibility raise various issues under California law. Most notable is the general requirement to pay overtime to nonexempt employees. Under most wage orders, nonexempt employees who work more than eight hours in a day and more than 40 hours in a week or work seven days in a workweek are entitled to overtime pay. This rule and how it plays out in various contexts are discussed below.

Daily Overtime

California law significantly affects schedule flexibility for nonexempt employees by requiring payment for daily overtime. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers need to pay overtime only when a covered employee has worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, regardless of how many hours the employee worked each day. However, California law, specifically Labor Code §510, requires employers to pay overtime (i.e., "one and one-half times the regular rate of pay"¹) for all hours worked by nonexempt employees over eight hours in a day and double time for all hours worked over 12 hours in a day.

In addition, employers must compensate any work performed beyond eight hours on the seventh day of a workweek at two times the employee's regular rate of pay. This law is particularly significant because California law requires employers to pay overtime even if the work performed was not authorized by the employer. Consequently, employers cannot allow employees to make or shift their schedules in such a way that results in more than eight hours of work each day without paying overtime.

Employers should also remain aware that certain wage orders specify different rules for overtime and always consult the wage orders when assessing compliance with California law.

Alternative Workweek Schedule

One unique feature of California law that may provide schedule flexibility for nonexempt employees, while potentially avoiding the daily overtime requirement, is the alternative workweek schedule (also referred to as a compressed workweek). Under California law, an alternative workweek schedule is defined in Labor Code §500(c) as "any regularly scheduled workweek requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a 24-hour period."² This is distinct from a flexible schedule that permits employees to identify start and end times for an eight-hour shift that perhaps differs from the overall workforce.

The information on alternative workweeks below may be governed differently in some industries or positions depending on the applicable wage order. Though the summary below reflects general rules pertaining to alternative workweeks, employers should always check the applicable wage order to ensure compliance with additional rules.

Longer Shifts/Fewer Days

Alternative schedules permit greater flexibility by enabling employees to work longer shifts on a fewer number of workdays in a workweek, thus providing additional time off from work and related benefits such as decreased commuting time and costs. These schedules also permit nonexempt employees to work more than eight hours in a day without incurring daily overtime.

Common examples of alternative workweek schedules are the 4/10 (employees work 10 hours on each of four workdays and get an extra day off every workweek) or the 9/80 (employees work four nine-hour days and one four-hour day in the first week and four nine-hour shifts with an extra day off in the second week). The impetus for proposing an alternative workweek schedule may be based on business needs or on requests from employees.

Seasonal Schedules

In 2009, California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) authorized a variant on alternative workweek scheduling in the DLSE Opinion Letter 2009.03.23, whereby employers could use alternative workweek schedules during particular times of the year (e.g., a summer schedule), provided the schedules were fixed and regularly recurring and the employer adhered to the other requirements for adopting such schedules (see below).

In that particular instance, the employer adopted a schedule that rotated between four nine-hour days and one four-hour day during the summer months and five eight-hour days during the rest of the year, thus allowing employees longer weekends during the summer months.

Requirements. 

Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, California requirements for implementing these alternative workweek schedules are stringent and anything but flexible. Compounding this problem, the penalties for noncompliance are also severe and include the potential invalidation of the schedule and up to four years of overtime liability.

California Labor Code §511 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders prescribe a specific procedure for implementing an alternative work schedule to avoid liability or penalties. A complete overview of these requirements is beyond the scope of this article, and employers are encouraged to contact legal counsel before implementing any alternative workweek arrangement, but the basic steps of the process are outlined below. An individual or even small groups of employees generally cannot agree to an alternative workweek schedule that suits their personal needs; rather, except in narrow circumstances, a work unit (as defined) must agree to and be subject to the alternative schedule.

A work unit is typically defined as all employees in a particular division, department, job classification, physical location or defined shift. (Fortunately, recent statutory amendments have provided some additional flexibility by allowing a single employee to comprise a work unit in certain circumstances and by allowing the menu of alternative schedules.) Whatever the composition of the work unit, it must be defined as part of the alternative workweek agreement and comply with the employer's wage order.

After an employer identifies which groups of employees will be affected and what the proposed alternative schedule will be, California law requires the employer to do the following:

1. Distribute a written disclosure describing the proposed schedule's effects on wages, hours and benefits. The proposal must specify the number of workdays and the number of work hours for each workday under the alternative workweek schedule. It need not specify the particular days of the week or the particular schedule on each day.
2. Hold at least one meeting for all affected employees at least 14 days before an election to decide whether to adopt the proposal. Employers may provide notice of the meeting in the written disclosure.
3. Hold a secret ballot election (a two-thirds vote of approval by the affected employees is required for the proposed schedule to become effective). Employers should provide a sample ballot with the written disclosure or at the meeting in advance of the election.
4. File election results with the Division of Labor Statistics and Research within 30 days of the election.
5. Give notice to the affected employees if the proposed alternative workweek schedule is adopted pursuant to the secret ballot election. The notice should state a specific date on which it will implement the alternative workweek schedule. That date must be at least 30 days after the final election results.

See Office of Policy, Research, and Legislation alternative workweek elections database and How to Implement Alternative Workweek Schedules in California.

As mentioned, failure to follow any of these steps will result in an invalid alternative workweek, which may result in overtime liability. In addition, these alternative schedules do not negate overtime obligations completely, so employers still need to watch for overtime incurred. There are numerous overtime rules for alternative workweeks. Employers should consult their wage orders.

Make-Up Time

Another form of scheduling flexibility requested by nonexempt employees is to leave or miss certain hours of work one day and then make up the time by working a longer shift or additional time later. (As a practical matter, this practice involves the mirror-opposite of compensatory time off because under make-up time, the employee leaves early and requests to work a longer shift later, whereas under compensatory time off, the employee works longer and then later seeks to work a shorter shift in lieu of overtime for the first shift).

California law, specifically Labor Code §513 and the wage orders, permits the use of make-up time requested by the employee because of personal obligations as a narrow exception to the daily overtime rules, but only in situations meeting certain statutorily enumerated requirements. Generally summarized, the employer may pay the make-up time at the straight time rate, rather than at the overtime rate, only if:

• The initial missed work time was due to the employee's personal obligation (rather than to the employer's business needs).
• The employee requests to use make-up time in writing before taking the time off or working the make-up hours (up to four weeks in advance). In most cases, employees must make a separate request for each instance of make-up time, with limited exceptions for a regularly occurring need for make-up time.
• The time is made up in the same workweek that the time was taken off.
• The made-up time does not cause the employee to work more than 11 hours in a day or more than 40 hours in a week (at which point overtime must be paid).

Section 513 also expressly prohibits employers from encouraging or otherwise soliciting an employee to request make-up time.

Job-Sharing

Job-sharing is a flexible work option in which two (or more) employees perform the full range of duties and responsibilities associated with a single position. In comparison with the options generally involving a full-time schedule in different formats, job-sharing is an attractive flex-work option for nonexempt employees who wish to work fewer hours, such as individuals approaching retirement or those with considerable family commitments. As with all flexible work arrangements, job-sharing requires substantial advance planning, including on such issues as scheduling, division of duties and proration of benefits. There are also multiple legal considerations. It is difficult to maintain job-sharing for exempt employees in California.

Minimum salary for exempt employees. An initial potential problem arises if two exempt employees share the same position, given the salary basis requirement for executive, administrative and professional exemptions. California law requires that exempt employees in these three exemptions receive a "monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment,"³ and the Fair Labor Standards Act also has minimum salary requirements. Each job-sharing employee must receive the full minimum salary to maintain exempt status regardless of the number of hours worked. As a practical matter, this means it will likely be more difficult to use job-sharing programs for exempt employees, unless of the course, the employer makes the employees in these rolls nonexempt.

Risk of daily overtime for nonexempt employees. California law also presents wage and hour issues for job-sharing nonexempt employees, although these overlap with the considerations discussed herein for other flexible work arrangements. For instance, because job-sharing often involves a slightly different form of a compressed workweek (i.e., working more hours in a shorter number of days), employers need to be mindful of California's daily overtime rules, including requiring overtime for nonexempt employees who work more than eight hours in a single workday. By contrast, the overtime rules under the FLSA stipulate that employees receive overtime only for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, meaning overtime is rarely an issue under federal law for job-sharing employees, but it is a very real prospect for job-sharing employees in California.

Time worked outside regular schedule. An oft-cited practical problem is identifying the best method for job-sharing employees to update each other regarding the status of projects or to answer questions that arise. In the exempt employee context, the biggest obstacle may be the diminished productivity as employees e-mail each other or trade phone calls, including on one employee's off day. However, nonexempt employees are entitled to be compensated for this work on an off day given California's requirement that employers pay for all hours worked.

Equal employment opportunity issues. Job-sharing also presents several potential equal employment opportunity and job accommodation issues. For instance, although job-sharing could involve female employees balancing family care issues, employers that limit job-sharing opportunities to such female employees may face discrimination claims from male employees who argue that job-sharing is a term and condition of employment.

The flip side of such concern is that to the extent the employer uses participation in flexible work arrangements as a criterion on which other employment decisions are based (e.g., employees on a flexible work schedule are not eligible for promotion), the employer may be susceptible to a disparate impact claim if more women are adversely affected by the use of such criterion.

Finally, if older employees increasingly opt for a phased retirement (i.e., a partial retirement but continued work on a reduced basis), employers that limit job-sharing to only younger employees may potentially face an age discrimination claim. (Such phased retirement programs also present potential legal issues, including retirement and benefits plan issues that are more appropriately analyzed under federal laws, e.g., the Internal Revenue Code, and are beyond the scope of this article).

Employers that allow employees to job-share may also establish a precedent that part-time work or a reduced work schedule is a potential form of reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. However, this is arguably less of an issue in California because the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) specifically identifies "part-time or modified work schedules" as a form of reasonable accommodation.⁴ See California Government Code §12926(o)(2).

Meal and Rest Periods

When allowing employees flexibility in scheduling, employers should also consider California's requirement that nonexempt employees who work more than five hours be provided with a meal period in addition to the rest breaks required under California and federal law. Failure to provide meal and rest periods in accordance with the law will result in penalties. Employers must also review their wage orders for any specific rules.

Generally, nonexempt employees who work more than five hours must be provided with a meal period of no less than 30 consecutive minutes before the end of the fifth hour worked. There is an exception for employees who work no more than six hours, in which six hours will complete the day's work. In that case, employees may agree to waive the meal period.

In addition, employees who work more than 10 hours must be given a second meal period of not less than 30 consecutive minutes. The meal period must begin before the end of the 10th hour worked. Employees who have not waived the first meal period and who will work more than 10 but less than 12 hours for a shift may waive the second meal period. See California Meal Periods.

California law also requires employers to authorize and permit employees to take 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof. Employees must be compensated for rest period time. Like meal periods, an employer that fails to provide rest periods must pay an employee one hour of additional pay for each workday in which it did not provide a rest period. See California Rest Periods.

Location Flexibility

Location flexibility—most often exercised by means of telecommuting—provides flexibility to certain employees who are permitted to work remotely. Telecommuting usually relies on the use of computers and other telecommunications devices to give employees access to the resources needed to complete their jobs while not physically present at the employer's place of business. Although not every job category is suited to telecommuting, it has become a widely accepted practice throughout California and the nation.

Somewhat surprisingly, despite the increased popularity of telecommuting, California does not have any statutes or regulations specifically addressing telecommuting for private employers. However, the California Department of General Services has created  a resource guide for public employers, About Statewide Telework (Telecommuting). Employers need to consider many other aspects of California law that are indirectly implicated by telecommuting, including:

• Wage and hour issues.
• Safety issues.
• Workers' compensation issues.
• Posting requirements.
• Reimbursement of business expenses.
  
• Confidentiality and privacy.
• Status of industrial homeworkers.
• Determining which state law applies.

Wage and Hour Issues

Because supervisors cannot closely monitor employees who telecommute, employers face the risk that nonexempt employees may not adhere to the organization's time-keeping policies. Telecommuting also raises logistical issues with respect to the timely payment of wages and as to how California employers will fulfill their statutory obligation to maintain records for nonexempt employees identifying the start and end of the workday and meal periods. See California Labor Code §1174.

Some of the more common wage and hour compliance issues with telecommuting are discussed below.

Working off the clock. One of the most significant risks of telecommuting is that nonexempt employees may perform work without recording their time (i.e., work off the clock). Preliminarily, California law (Labor Code §1174) requires employers to maintain records identifying a nonexempt employee's work hours, including when the employee takes meal periods.

The law requires that when an employee works off the clock, the employer must also compensate the employee for the time worked. This situation frequently arises in the telecommuting context when an employee is responding to e-mail, text messages or telephone calls from his or her supervisor. To that end, telecommuting employees should have set working hours, so an employer can more easily ascertain if certain work is being performed off the clock.

Managers should instruct employees to record any time spent responding to e-mails, texts and phone calls (and any other working time), and employers should advise managers that contacting employees during nonscheduled hours will result in overtime liability.

Unauthorized overtime. Free from the watchful eye of their supervisors, nonexempt employees who work remotely might work unauthorized overtime. In California, employers must pay all hours worked, regardless of whether the employee was authorized to work such time, although the employer may discipline employees who work unauthorized overtime.

To prevent overtime from occurring, as part of their telecommuting agreement, nonexempt employees should acknowledge that they are not allowed to work overtime without management approval. They should likewise be required to clock in and out via a computer or telephone log-in system. In addition, the telecommuting agreement should include a provision that the employer maintains the right to revoke the telecommuting privileges for failure to adhere to any of the time-keeping policies, including for working unauthorized overtime, working off the clock or failing to take timely meal periods. 

Meal and rest periods. As discussed above, California has specific rules requiring meal periods for nonexempt employees, and these apply regardless of whether the employee is at the office or working remotely. Thus, employers must make sure that nonexempt employees working remotely comply with California's meal period requirement. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of penalties and liability for hours worked.

To the extent possible, meal periods should be scheduled to occur each day at a particular time, so that employees know that they should stop working at that time and that the employer can tell whether they are working when they are scheduled to be on break. In addition, organizations should require employees to sign their time cards and attest that they have accurately recorded all hours worked and all meal periods taken. Likewise, as stated above, telecommuting employees should be reminded to take rest periods in accordance with the law even though they are working remotely.

Payday rules. California also maintains fairly detailed rules regarding the timing and method for providing paychecks, which employers may need to consider when an employee is working remotely. For instance, Labor Code §207 requires an employer to establish a regular payday and to post a notice identifying the day, time and location of payment, which often involves handing out checks in the office. Fortunately, Labor Code §213(d) provides some flexibility in this regard by allowing direct deposit if an employee voluntarily agrees to such deposits. Employers could also arrange with telecommuting employees that they be present at the location of payment on payday (i.e., the worksite). 

California also has special requirements that apply equally to telecommuters regarding tendering a final paycheck to employees who have been terminated or who have resigned. Generally, terminated employees must be paid "at the place of discharge,"⁵ which may be difficult to determine for telecommuting employees, whereas employees who resign should be paid at the employer's place of business.

Thus, a telecommuting employee who resigns can be directed to come to the worksite to receive his or her final paycheck, although Labor Code §202 permits an employee who resigns to receive payment by mail if he or she so requests and designates a mailing address. When an employer terminates a telecommuting employee, the employer needs to ensure that the employee receives the final check the same day and at the place of discharge.

This often means the employer could arrange for the telecommuting employee to come into the office to be terminated or, in situations in which the termination decision is to be remotely conveyed, arrange for the final check to be delivered that same day. See Paydays, pay periods, and the final wages.

Safety Issues

Employers have a general duty to provide a safe work environment. Fulfilling that duty potentially becomes more difficult for employees who work in locations of their own choosing and beyond direct employer contact. Employers should consider working with telecommuting employees, including providing a safety checklist, to control the risk of injury and to remind employees that they are required to comply with all workplace safety rules even when working remotely. Employees should be instructed to immediately inform the employer of any injury suffered in the course and scope of employment. If an employee telecommutes from home, his or her home is not considered a separate establishment, and a separate California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Form 300 is not required. 

Workers' Compensation

California workers' compensation law does not differentiate between onsite and offsite employees; it covers any injury that occurs in the course and scope of employment. See California Labor Code §3200, et seq.

To help determine whether an injury occurred in the course and scope of employment, employers should have telecommuting employees provide a general framework of the work they will perform remotely, detailing when and where they intend to perform such work. Employers should also consider requiring all telecommuting employees (not only nonexempt employees) to track their time spent working, so that employers can more easily assess if the injury occurred during working time.

Finally, employers should provide telecommuting employees with the contact information for its workers' compensation medical providers and emphasize the importance of immediately reporting all work-related injuries.

Posting Requirements

In California, all employers must meet certain workplace posting obligations, including posting the applicable wage orders, safety rules and regulations, notice of workers' compensation carriers, and whistle-blower protection. These posting obligations are set forth in various statutes with numerous requirements. Employers typically comply with the myriad requirements by posting in a conspicuous location where employees congregate.

Although these various statutes do not expressly require that employers post in the home of a telecommuting employee, the statutes do not provide an exemption for telecommuting employees either. There is no authority on how employers can meet this obligation with respect to telecommuting employees, but to be cautious, employers should consider providing employees who exclusively work remotely with copies of the required posters. Employers may also post them on the organization's intranet for remote employees to access.

Reimbursement of Business Expenses

California Labor Code §2802 requires employers to indemnify its employees for all necessary expenditures employees incur in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties. Because telecommuting employees do not perform their duties in the office, the employer should take care that telecommuting employees have all the supplies they need to fulfill their duties. Employers may provide the necessary supplies (e.g., laptop, printer, paper, pens) or some sort of allowance or reimburse employees for supplies purchased. Employers should provide a mechanism by which telecommuting employees can submit business expenses for reimbursement.

Employers need not reimburse telecommuting employees for expenditures that are solely for personal use. Moreover, business expenses are not considered wages, according to the DLSE, so the provisions of the Labor Code governing final pay do not apply to the reimbursement of business expenses, and employees may be reimbursed in the regular business cycle.

Confidentiality and Privacy

In any state, including California, employees should maintain the confidentiality of company property even when working from home. Employers regularly deal with preservation of trade secrets and confidential information issues with telecommuting employees. Employers should have strongly written policies stating that employees do not have any expectation of privacy when accessing organizational documents or using organizational networks, even when the access is from a home computer.

The policy should also articulate which, if any, confidential information employees may access from or transfer to a home computer and how employees must protect that information when accessed remotely. In addition, employers should be aware of authority governing the ability to restrict what employees do with trade secrets and confidential information. To that end, employers should consult with legal counsel when drafting any policy to be sure it complies with that California authority.

A second area of importance is for employers to limit employees' reasonable expectation of privacy. Employers should also strive to develop confidentiality and privacy policies that minimize the expectation of privacy. Although employers may put an employee on notice that the employee's computers and telephone lines may be monitored during work hours, employers in California may not monitor personal phone calls by employees and may not record the employee's phone calls without the employee's consent and the consent of the other party on the phone.

Allowing employees to work remotely also implicates the security of customer, client or employee personal information such as Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, account numbers, credit or debit card numbers, or security codes or passwords for accessing financial accounts.

As in most jurisdictions, employers need to enact measures that maintain data security while allowing remote employees access to employer information. In the event of a security breach (such as the theft of the telecommuting employee's laptop or the hacking of his or her personal computer), to the extent personal information has been compromised, California law requires the employer to notify the affected individuals. To ensure compliance, employers should require employees to report any security breach immediately.

Employing Industrial Homeworkers

As a practical matter, not every job is suitable for working remotely, so employers need to carefully analyze what employee positions are best suited for working remotely and the procedures for approving telecommuting requests. California also has legal restrictions covering the types of work that can be done remotely. For instance, the Labor Code restricts the types of manufacturing activity that can take place at an employee's home. See California Labor Code §2650, et seq.

Additionally, for certain types of manufacturing that may be performed at home, the employer must have an industrial homework license, and the employee must have a homeworker's permit. Employers that are considering allowing employees to manufacture any material from home should consult with counsel to make sure that the work is allowed to be performed from home and that all other requirements are met.

Determining Which State Law Applies

Whereas most telecommuting occurs within a short distance from the employee's normal office, technological advances mean some telecommuting employees are less tethered to any particular location. An employee working remotely from another state presents potential issues, including during specific recurring periods of the year. For example, snowbird programs allow employees to transfer to an organization's location in a warmer region during winter months.

As a general rule, if an employee works outside the state in which the employer is located, the employee is covered by the law of the state in which he or she works. California has distinct guidelines. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011), the California Supreme Court held that if an employee of a California-based employer travels to work in California but is not a California resident, California overtime law applies to any work for a full day or week.

Consequently, when a California employer directs a nonexempt employee to perform work in California, the employee must be paid daily overtime and must take meal periods as applicable even if the employee is not a California resident. This rule does not apply to employers based outside California.

When reviewing employee requests to work remotely, employers should exercise caution in allowing their non-California employees to work from a California location and consult with counsel as needed. Similarly, as when addressing workplace safety or working hours, the employer might consider provisions limiting the locations from where employees may perform work remotely.

Flexible Work Arrangements as a Reasonable Accommodation

As under federal law, California's FEHA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with a disability, if such accommodation would enable them to perform the essential functions of the job. See Work At Home/Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation.

Examples of reasonable accommodations include job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position for which the individual is qualified, or an unpaid extension of paid or unpaid leave. Likewise, flexible work arrangements for a period of time may be considered a reasonable accommodation for a disability or medical condition. Such flexible work arrangements may include working from home or working modified schedules.

Employers should note that providing flexible work arrangements to certain employees but not offering such arrangements as an accommodation for a disability may be considered discrimination under federal or California law. If an employee's regular presence (or presence at particular times) at the employer's worksite is an essential function of the job, the employer need not allow an employee to telecommute as a reasonable accommodation.

That argument is undercut, however, if the employer allows other employees in similar job categories to telecommute or work modified schedules. The employee requesting the accommodation may then claim that the employer is discriminating against him or her by refusing to allow him or her to telecommute or work a modified schedule. Employers should carefully evaluate the essential job duties of a position before allowing any employee to telecommute (whether as an accommodation for a disability or not).

In addition, if an employer has allowed an employee to work from a home office, it may be responsible for providing the same accommodations for the employee's home office as it would for the employee's workplace office (e.g., providing ergonomic improvements), but the employer would not have to approve unreasonable requests or those constituting an undue hardship. Employers should consult with counsel when presented with a request for accommodation that implicates a flexible work arrangement.

Separate and apart from being a potential reasonable accommodation, telecommuting could arguably be considered a term and condition of employment. As such, employers cannot discriminate when deciding which employees may or may not receive the benefit of telecommuting. To avoid the appearance of discrimination, when formulating the criteria to be used in determining if an individual will be allowed to telecommute, employers should consider focusing on the position and the duties, as opposed to the reason that the employee is requesting to telecommute.

Additional Resources

Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders

DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual

California Labor Commissioner's Office (DLSE)

Endnotes

¹California Labor Code §500-§558. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=500-558.1

²Ibid.

³California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. DLSE—Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp

⁴California Government Code §12926(o)(2). Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=12001-13000&file=12925-12928

⁵California Labor Code §208. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=208