Employment law attorneys and human resources directors throughout the state anxiously wait for the California State Supreme Court to rule in a case that could have wide ranging implications.

Depending on how the justices rule in Brinker Restaurant Corp. vs. Superior Court, the decision may cost businesses millions of dollars and place new responsibilities in monitoring meal and rest breaks for their employees, or it may mean a whimper rather than a bang for pending class action lawsuits.

Since 2008, the Brinker case has wound its way through the state court system. At its simplest it seeks clarification of whether employers must merely offer meal and rest breaks and leave it to the employees to take them, or if the company must mandate the breaks be taken.

It’s the latter that opens the door to ensuring the 30-minute meal period is taken away from the employees desk, that it not be interrupted, and that the full time be taken and recorded.

“On some level what employers are hoping for is a reasonable approach where (the justices) say you are not responsible for babysitting the employees,” said Richard Rosenberg, an attorney with Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt LLP in Glendale.

While Brinker is the most anticipated case it is not the only one state and federal courts judges will rule on that affect the business community.

Also pending are cases involving holding corporate officers and directors liable for failure to pay overtime and wages; allowing unprofessional comments from management in termination cases; if an arbitration clause can cover wage claims; and if nonresidents fall under California wage laws when working for a California company.

The last case was in the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals until the justices withdrew their opinion to allow time for the state Supreme Court to give its guidance.

With the courts shaping relations between employers and their workers, human resources managers and directors don’t have the option to ignore developments taking place in courtrooms.

In the HR consultancy run by Michael Colitti, he and his business partner reinforce to their clients the importance of keeping up with changes in employment law.

“They are not just paper pushers,” said Colitti, of Holman HR in Northridge. “It is much more important to have an understanding on the legal issues that are out there.”

That can be difficult to do if the resources to stay current are not given to the human resources department. Companies without a dedicated HR director can also find themselves in trouble because they are unaware they have to record when an employee takes a rest break.

“I hear that all the time; I really do,” said Dawn Kaplan, a consultant who doubles as the human resources director at the Child Care Resource Center.

In the Brinker case, however, it was an owner of chain restaurants (Chili’s Grill & Bar, Romano’s Macaroni Grill, and Maggiano’s Little Italy) that came under fire for violations of not giving meal breaks to employees working five or more hours; and not giving a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked. Employees can receive an extra hour of pay for a violation.

Until the Supreme Court gives its decision, HR consultants and employment law attorneys advise clients to enforce the rules and documents when employees are taking the break.

If there is a familiar refrain it is about the difficulty of following up the breaks are taken. There can be instances where stopping for a half hour lunch is inconvenient, and while the employee doesn’t knowingly break the law their employer can still be held liable.

Policing employees

“We hope the case goes in a direction to make it available but we don’t have to police it,” said Lori Crawford, vice president of human resources for internet and social networking provider United Online.

Plaintiff attorneys tend to include rest and meal break violations in any type of workplace lawsuit, including discrimination, because of the potential payout at the end of the case.

With an employee being able to collect up to an extra two hours of pay for missing the breaks, the cost to a business can quickly add up if found in violation.

“That is why Brinker is so huge,” Rosenberg said.

For the past two years Rosenberg’s firm has hit clients over the head with the importance of being in compliance. But for every company that has a lawyer giving that advice there are many others lacking representations.

That is why for smaller companies it becomes even more difficult to stay in compliance and opening themselves up to litigation.

“They do not have the wherewithal to keep track of the records,” Rosenberg said.

This is a regular feature on philanthropic activities by Valley-area businesspeople and companies.

Benefit for YMCA

Picanha Churrascaria is hosting an event with all proceeds to benefit the Burbank Community YMCA to Celebrate their 10 year anniversary to be held March 9 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

CEO JC Holt of the Burbank Community YMCA remarked that having community partners like Picanha who understand the importance of healthy eating is “one of the most important things about Burbank.

Tickets are $35 each. A buffet of salads and vegetables, meats and Brazilian side dishes will be served with an included dessert.

IHOP Pancake Day

At the national Pancake Day IHOP on Feb. 23 locations in Glendale and Encino gave each guest a short stack of buttermilk pancakes to raise awareness and funds for The Los Angeles Children’s Hospital and the Children’s Miracle Network nationally.

IHOP has a national goal to raise $1.75 million this year. This would add up to $5 million dollars in their National Pancake Day efforts. The fundraising window was extended until Feb. 28.

In 2009, $1.5 million was donated to children’s charities nationally and 2.5 million pancakes were served. Since 2006, IHOP has raised $3.25 million and given away 6.1 million pancakes.

The first IHOP location opened in Toluca Lake in 1958, and as of Sep. 2009 there were 1,433 IHOPs in 50 states.

Lockheed Federal Credit Union Donation

Burbank-based Lockheed Federal Credit Union and their employees have donated $133,000 and 720 hours of community service to local charities since 2008.

Some of these charities included the Burbank Temporary Aid Center, For the Troops, Penny Lane and the Santa Clarita Valley Senior Center.

The company also had hosted 11 volunteer opportunities as of February for company participation. Employee financial contributions to the charities were made through payroll deductions. LFCU’s Community Star Foundation’s Board of Directors decides annually where to donate the funds collected on behalf of local charities.

Healthy Kids Fair

Glendale Adventist Medical Center and the City of Glendale, Parks Recreation and Community Service and CVS Pharmacy are partnering to offer For the Kids health Fair, which will include free services and health screenings. It will take place April 17 from10 p.m. to 2 p.m. at the Edison Pacific Community Center.

Free services offered include dental and scoliosis screenings, blood pressure tests and stress management screenings.

Other parts of the event include healthy eating tips, pulmonary testing, healthy lifestyle entertainment, chair massages and information on child car seat inspections.

For more information contact Camille Levee at (818) 548-7931 or visit glendalehealthykids.org.

Safe Passage Benefit

Local dentist Dr. Bruce Vafa, who donates his services to Safe Passage clients, was honored at a gala luncheon to benefit Safe Passage at the Universal Sheraton on Feb. 14.

John Wurtz, a CPA in Newbury Park who contributed to the silent auction and is a donor to Safe Passage, said he was profoundly affected by the women’s stories.

Shaun and Lisa Brickhandler of LoveMyCharity.com served as sponsors for the event. Amy Martin Friedman exhibited photography, and there was a live auction and entertainment. Other contributors include the P&G Salon in Woodland Hills which donated Sebastian Products, the Van Nuys Airport Propeller

Association which auctioned a plane ride and the law offices of Dawn Schleizer that sponsored a table. Synergy business Results’ Kimm Thorton donated her time to serve as Public Relations person for the event. Universal Care was also a major sponsor and donates free care to Safe Passage patients.

Free Services to Heart Patient

For the fifth year Dr. Gholam Mohammadzadeh and Providence Tarzana have provided free services to a Jamaican heart patient through a program co-sponsored by Providence Tarzana and the Rotary Club of Conejo Valley Centennial in Westlake Village.

Claude Irving, the Jamaican heart patient needed a heart repair to relieve a serious heart enlargement which wasn’t available in Jamaica.

Congress has done it again. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), which became effective last year, prohibits discrimination against employees and job applicants on the basis of “genetic information”. This FAQ will familiarize you with the many obligations GINA imposes on employers.

Q. Which Employers/Employing Entities Are Subject To GINA?

A. Any private employer who has 15+ employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current (or preceding) calendar year is covered by GINA. Also, state and local government employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management training and apprenticeship programs.

Q. What Is “Genetic Information:?

A. Genetic information is information about: (1) the genetic tests of an individual, (2) the genetic tests of an individual’s family member, and/or (3) information about any disease, disorder, or condition of an individual’s family members (i.e. an individual’s family medical history).

Notably, GINA excludes from the definition of “genetic information” the manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition of an individual (as opposed to the individual’s family member). Genetic information also does not include an individual’s sex or age.

GINA defines a “family member” as any person who is within a fourth-degree relation of the individual. The EEOC’s proposed regulations further define “family member” as a person who is or becomes related through marriage, birth, adoption, or placement for adoption.

Q. What Discriminatory Acts Are Prohibited?

A. Genetic information cannot be the basis for any of the following actions by an employer:

• decisions not to hire an individual;

• decisions to terminate an employee;

• decisions that affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of an employee’s employment (e.g. anything that affects the employee’s position, wages, benefits);

• limiting, segregating, or classifying an employee in any way that would deprive the employee of employment opportunities or benefits or otherwise adversely affect the employee’s status in the workplace; and/or

• harassment of an employee or job applicant on the basis of genetic information or genetic status. This includes behavior by the employer, supervisor, co-worker, or someone with whom the employee or applicant interacts in the workplace.

Q. What Other Acts Are Covered?

A. GINA also prohibits employers from firing, demoting, harassing, or otherwise retaliating against an applicant or employee for: (i) complaining of discrimination; (ii) participating in an official discrimination proceeding; or (iii) otherwise opposing discrimination based on genetic information.

Q. Are There Prohibitions Against An Employer Acquiring An Employee’s Genetic Information?

A. Yes. An employer cannot request, require, or purchase genetic information about an applicant, employee or a family member of an employee, except under the following exceptions. The exceptions are:

• Inadvertent acquisitions of genetic information, such as when a manager or supervisor incidentally overhears someone talking about a family member’s illness;

• Genetic information obtained as part of health or genetic services, including wellness programs, offered by the employer where: (1) the employee provides prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization; (2) only the employee and health care professional receives individually identifiable information about the results of service; (3) the genetic information is available only for the purpose of the service; and (4) no identifying information is disclosed to the employer;

• Genetic information acquired as part of the certification process for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or similar state or local laws, where an employee is asking for leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition;

• Acquisition through commercially and publicly available documents (e.g., newspapers, books, magazines) is permitted, as long as the employer is not searching those sources with the intent of finding genetic information;

• Acquisition through a genetic monitoring program that monitors the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace is permitted where the monitoring is required by law or, under carefully defined conditions, where the program is voluntary; and/or

• Acquisition of genetic information of employees by employers who engage in DNA testing for law enforcement purposes, such as a forensic lab or for purposes of human remains identification.

Q. Does GINA Have Privacy Requirements Regarding Maintenance of Employee Genetic Information?

A. Yes. Employers must treat any records containing an employee’s genetic information just as you would confidential medical records. Employers may not disclose genetic information except as follows:

• to the employee (or family member if the family member is receiving the genetic service) at the written request of the employee;

• to an occupational or other health researcher for certain research projects;

• in response to an order of a court;

• to government officials who are investigating compliance with GINA if such information is relevant;

• to the extent such disclosure relates to an employee’s certification process for FMLA leave (or leave under similar state or local laws), where an employee is asking for leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition; and/or

• to a federal, state, or local public health agency as it concerns a contagious disease that presents an imminent hazard of death or life-threatening illness.

Q. Does GINA Contain Any Restrictions About Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Plans?

A. Yes. GINA prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by employer-sponsored group health plans. Health insurers may not adjust premium or contribution amounts based on genetic information. Also, health insurers may not request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except: (1) for the purpose of making payment determinations and the request seeks the minimum amount of information, and (2) for research purposes under certain circumstances. Lastly, health insurers cannot request, require, or purchase an individual’s genetic information prior to his or her enrollment under the plan or coverage. However, incidental collection will not be considered a violation.

Q. What Federal Agency Is Responsible For Enforcing GINA?

A. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) will enforce GINA. EEOC was expected to issue implementing regulations by now, but that process has been delayed.

Q. Does the GINA law Make Changes To Any Other Employment Laws?

A. Yes. In typical Washington, D.C. fashion, the GINA law had some strings attached which had absolutely nothing to do with genetic information. GINA amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the penalty for child labor violations to $1,000 per violation and raises potential employer liability to $50,000 in cases of a minor’s death or serious injury. Such amounts may be doubled for willful violations.

 Recommendations: Employers should review and update their employment policies, practices, and procedures with labor counsel to ensure compliance with GINA. Management training on GINA is also important. Employers should be sure that the entire management team understands that they must refrain from requesting, requiring, or otherwise obtaining genetic information about any job applicant or employee. If you currently possess genetic information about an employee or applicant, ensure that the information is maintained in confidence on a separate form and in a separate medical file.

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s office has filed a lawsuit challenging the installation of so-called “supergraphic” and other types of signage throughout the city, including a handful in the Valley.

Many of the signs identified in the suit cover windows and obstruct ventilation, posing serious safety hazards for building occupants. Designed to be viewed primarily by motorists, the suit claims the signs create hazardous distractions for drivers.

In 2009, the City of Los Angeles adopted a permanent ban on supergraphics and some other types of signs.

The lawsuit alleges that 10 defendants, both companies and individuals, erected the supergraphic signs in violation of that ban, as well as California’s Outdoor Advertising Act, Unfair Competition law and public nuisance laws, in addition to numerous other state laws and local ordinances.

The city attorney’s office seeks an injunction to stop the sign companies from putting up any more of the supergraphics, penalties for each day the signs remain up, and surrender of revenues made from the signs.

The Donald W. Reynolds Foundation has donated $12.75 million to help fund the renovation of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum’s exhibit galleries to coincide with President Reagan’s 100th birthday in 2011.

The new museum experience combines static and interactive displays to pay tribute to America’s 40th president and his accomplishments.

When the renovation is complete, 26,400 square feet of new interactive exhibits and never-before-seen artifacts and presidential gifts will open to the public.

The Reynolds Foundation previously donated $8.7 million to build and endow the library’s Air Force One Discovery Center.

The latest donation from the foundation helps to renovate the exhibit space for the first time since opening in 1991 in Simi Valley, former first lady Nancy Reagan said.

“Thanks to exciting new technology, museum exhibits will tell Ronnie’s personal story—as well as the story of his impact on this country and the world—even better than before,” Reagan said.

Glendale Water and Power awarded a contract to replace electric and water meters with smart meters to South Carolina utility-services contractor Utility Partners of America.

The installation will give 84,500 electric and 33,400 water customers in Glendale access to advanced metering technologies that generate a two-way communication network.

Utility Partners will install its OpenWay “smart-grid” technology supplied by a Spokane-area firm. The equipment as well as leak-detecting sensors, also from Itron, will be used to continuously monitor GWP’s entire water system.

“We sought a partner with the track record and infrastructure to successfully deploy an installation of this magnitude,” saidt Glenn Steiger, Glendale Water and Power general manager. “With more than 6 million meters installed, UPA demonstrated the expertise necessary to successfully make the transition for our customers.”

The contract, whose value was not immediately known, will begin in March of 2010 and is expected to take approximately fourteen months.

The City of Los Angeles has joined a new coalition of municipal governments in the San Fernando Valley to address planning, transportation and other regional issues.

The city council voted unanimously Feb. 12 to be a member of the San Fernando Council of Governments. Other members are Burbank, Glendale, Santa Clarita and the City of San Fernando.

The council becomes official once approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Among the functions the council will take on is coordinating efforts for obtaining state, federal and regional grants in support of planning projects; contract for the services of public/private organizations, managers, researchers, planners, engineers and other consultants; and build a consensus among the members to address regional and subregional issues, strategies, policies and programs.

General Motors and Chrysler will lose continuity in how they operate by having taken federal bailout money, a long-time auto executive said.

Donald Petersen, who headed the Ford Motor Co. for 15 years, said the two car manufacturers will survive in some form but perhaps not as meaningful as they had been before.

Petersen appeared with J.D. Power III, founder of the marketing information firm bearing his name, at the Corporate Leaders Breakfast at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks.

Power said that while the federal government came in with its money to help GM and Chrysler it had also come in with its own management.

“We know how well the Post Office and other things the government has run,” Power said.

Together, Power and Petersen have more than 100 years experience in the auto industry. Petersen joined Ford in 1949, rising through the executive ranks to become chief operating officer in 1980 and CEO and board chairman in 1985 before retiring in 1990. Power’s company has on its client list nearly every major car manufacturer and importer serving the U.S. market.

The U.S. auto industry hit a turning point with the Energy crisis in 1973, Petersen said, which resulted in more sales of smaller, more fuel efficient Japanese cars because the Big Three were slow to adapt.

“(The Japanese) did not have to redesign vehicles form the ground up,” Petersen said. “That was one of the biggest advantages they had.”