Silvers HR Wise masthead 2010
Bottom Line Human Resource Issues
June 2017
Our Training Calendar
2017 Workshops and Webinars at-a-glance

July 11, 2017

July 18, 2017

Coming Soon:
Our new  Reasonable Suspicion Drug Testing webinar on August 24, 2017.  Registration will open soon.

Reservations are required for Silvers HR workshops. Clients receive a discounted rate. 

Contact Katrina Murphy at
(916) 791-8506 or 

It's usually a full house at our workshops.  Here's a scene from our Lifecycle of an Employee workshop last winter. We'll offer this again in October 2017.

City minimum wages increase on July 1st

Several CA cities have minimum wage increases effective July 1st.  If you have employees in these cities, better check further:

Santa Monica

New Wage Order Postings   
The CA Department of Industrial Relations updated most Industrial Wage Orders (IWOs) with updated information about the state minimum wage increases.    All IWOs (except 14 and 17) have been updated.  You may find a link to print and post your IWO here.  Post the version with "Rev 12/2016" in the left footer of the cover page.  This posting is required for all CA employers.
has dozens of new employment related forms, sample letters and resources added this year.  Check it out - if you are lucky enough to have a password.  Sorry, it's only for our clients.
 Silvers HR, LLC
(916) 791-8506


This ezine is intended as a communication and thought provoking tool for our clients and friends. It is not legal advice. 
  If you would like to be
removed from our distribution list, please reply to this email and note "unsubscribe" in
the subject line.

© 2017 Silvers HR, LLC. All Rights Reserved

New California Regulations:  Consideration of Criminal History in Employment Decisions 
By Susan Breslauer, SPHR-CA, SHRM SCP 
New California regulations entitled "Consideration of Criminal History in Employment Decisions Regulations", will limit an employer's right to use criminal background information in hiring and other employment decisions.  These regulations (or "the Act") approved by the Fair Employment and Housing Council ("FEHC"), the state agency charged with enforcing civil rights laws in California, will take effect right around the corner on July 1, 2017.
The FEHC regulations expand on the EEOC requirements and place additional burden on employers in the selection and testing of applicants, placement, promotion and transfer of employees...Click here to read more. 
A Day of Rest is Clarified - 
By Kim Silvers, SPHR-CA, SHRM-SCP
California employers who have employees working beyond a regular five-day schedule will be happy to see the California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Mendoza v. Nordstrom .  Although Nordstrom may have felt like it "moved heaven and earth" to finalize this case law, it's a positive ruling for employers.
The premise of the lawsuit from two employees at Nordstrom was around an interpretation of how to define the California Labor Code sections 551 and 552.  Section 551 notes that "every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven."  Section 552 prohibits employers from "causing their employees to work more than six days in seven."  Further, section 556 of the CA Labor Code allows employers to make an exception to the one day of rest in seven "when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof." 
There were three primary issues on the court's desk...Click here to read more.
The Litigation Risk that Many  
Employers May Be Needlessly Holding On To
By John Wood
The latest edition of The Betterly Report noted that, when it comes to Employment Practices litigation risk, "The larger employer is much more likely to transfer risk than are smaller employers.  Ironically, it is the smaller employer that probably needs EPLI insurance protection the most, as their ability to self-assume losses is limited."
The report went on to note that only about 2.4% of small employers (1-49 employees) carried Employment Practices Liability insurance (EPL), while only 36.6% of mid-sized employers (50-999 employees) did so.
So why the inverted result, where the large employers (who are better suited, financially, to retain their Employment Practices litigation risk) are transferring that risk, while the small and mid-size companies (who have less financial capacity to retain the risk) aren't?
Perhaps this latter group is unaware of the level of risk that they're assuming, or presume that the cost of transference is prohibitive.  This article will try to shed some light on both factors.
The Scary Stuff
According to the latest edition of the Hiscox Guide to Employee Lawsuits...Click here to read more.