Highlights from 2011:

• Produced an EOC Handbook for Alpine Fire Department
• Assisted Copperopolis Fire Department in its search for a new Fire Chief
• Began a complete re-write of administrative policies for the Mi-Wuk Sugar Pine Fire Department.
• Exhibited at three different trade shows.
• Presented workshops on Board – Chief Obligations / Relations and Consolidation Issues.

In 2012 we plan to:

• Present more workshops including two break-out sessions at the FDAC Annual Conference in Napa.
• Complete the selection process for Linden-Peters Fire Department’s new Fire Chief.
• Exhibit at the Cal Chiefs Annual Conference, the California Special Districts Association Annual Conference, and the Fire Districts Association of California Annual Conference.
• Continue to work with several fire departments in revising administrative / board policies.

2012 promises to be a good year for CCS as we continue to meet the needs of the small and medium sized fire departments.  Our many services are designed specifically for those departments that lack full time experienced staff in a particular area.  Our prices are the best available, and as a small business we remain responsive to the needs of our customers.

For more information, or to contact us please visit our website at crabtreeconsulting.net.

If your district maintains a web site it now has a new mandate to post agendas even if the web site doesn’t lend itself easily to this type of dynamic information.  In certain circumstances districts may want to consider discontinuing the district sponsored site, or transferring the site to a different entity which is not directly supported by district resources (such as an auxiliary or volunteer association).  There is no requirement that you have a web page, site, or presence of any kind.

In some instances the firefighters association, auxiliary association, or the local union maintains a web site.  If this web site is not supported directly from district funds then the district will not be obligated to post its agendas there, although it may provide its agendas to the site owner to post at its discretion.  In this case districts should critically analyze those web sites and work with the web site owner to make sure that it is clear on the web site that it is NOT a district owned, operated, or sponsored site.

Other fallout from AB 1344 include:

• Limitations on COLAs in multi-year employment agreements with executives.
• Limitations on cash settlement terms in employment agreements with executives.
• Repayment of specified payments where executive is convicted of certain crimes involving abuse of office.
• Requirement that executive compensation be discussed and acted on at regular meetings (and not at special or emergency meetings).

For more information on these and other new requirements coming January 1, 2012, contact Crabtree Consulting Services, LLC, by email at Info@crabtreeconsulting.net or by telephone at 916.684.8899.

(1) The appointment is an interim appointment; and,
(2) The appointment is to a vacant position; and,
(3) The department is recruiting for a permanent appointment; and,
(4) The position is deemed to require specialized skills or during an emergency; and,
(5) The appointment does not exceed 960 hours in any fiscal year; and,
(6) The compensation doesn’t exceed the maximum published pay scale for the position; and,
(7) The appointment does not exceed 12 months; and,
(8) The employee is only appointed one time (no contract renewal or reappointments).

If these new requirements will have an adverse impact on your department, we are interested in hearing from you regarding the impact and any possible solutions that might work in your situation.  You can contact us by email at Info@crabtreeconsulting.net, or through our website at http://www.crabtreeconsulting.net.

For additional information on other new laws or changed laws that might impact your department, be sure to read our December 2011 edition of FDCAAlert.

Reference: AB 1028 (Chaptered 10/3/2011); Government Code section 21221(h)

via Even Best Practices Can’t Always Ensure Quick Dismissal of Wage & Hour Claims.

Prior to performing a credit check on an employee or prospective employee the employer or prospective employer must give written notice to the employee or prospective employee (except for special circumstances). What must be contained in the notice requirement is changing effective January 1, 2012. The notice must include a statement that a consumer credit report will be used, the legal exception under Labor Code section 1024.5 permitting the use of the consumer credit report, the source of the report, a box for the person to check if he/she wants a copy of the report. Additional reporting and notice requirements may follow depending on the circumstances.

In addition an employer or prospective employer is prohibited from using a consumer credit report for “employment purposes” unless the position of the person for whom the consumer credit report falls into one category from a specific list in the law. Three exceptions (there are others in the law which may also apply) that may permit fire departments to use a consumer credit report for employment decisions are:

• The person will be a signatory on a credit card account of the employer.
• The person will be authorized to transfer money on behalf of the employer.
• The person will be authorized to enter into financial contracts on behalf of the employer.

There may be other circumstances where the employer or prospective employer may be permitted to use a consumer credit report to make employment decisions. Because of the sensitive nature of consumer credit reports employers should be ensured that any use of consumer credit reports in employment decisions falls clearly within one or more of the exceptions in the law, and that the notice to the employee or prospective employee is in full compliance with the provisions of the law.

Employers are encouraged to review and revise policies as appropriate to ensure compliance with these changes in the laws.

(Ref: Civil Code 1785.20.5, Labor Code 1024.5)

SB 559 add provisions to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) which includes genetic information in protected ‘classifications’. This California protection against genetic information discrimination follows the US law (Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act or GINA, passed in 2008) prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information. It is now illegal, under California law, to discriminate against someone who may simply be carrier of a genetic disorder and who may one day exhibit symptoms of the disorder.

AB 887 adds protections for gender ‘identity’ and ‘expression.’ Gender ‘identity’ refers to a person’s deep felt sense of being male or female, genetic or physical indications. Gender ‘expression’ refers to a persons behavior, mannerisms, appearance, and other ‘characteristics’ that might be perceived as either masculine or feminine. This new protection means, for example, that a male employee may not be harassed or discriminated against because he wears lipstick, make-up, or skirts, behaves ‘effeminately.’ Likewise a female employee or applicant may not be discriminated against because she prefers to wear ‘men’s’ blue jeans instead of skirts or dresses.

Employer’s should review and revise their harassment and discrimination polices to ensure compliance with these two new laws. In addition, employers should ensure that all employees receive training that includes these new classifications of protected employees and applicants.

While consolidation seems like a reasonable solution in many instances, it is not without its problems – before, during, and after consolidation. What are the types of agencies that are talking to each other about consolidation: cities, fire protection districts, community services districts, county fire departments, or some other type of special district? While any of these agencies can in fact consolidate with others, each situation brings its own set of unique issues to the table. In addition, decisions need to be made regarding what type of agency the new fire department will be: a fire protection district, community services district, or different type of special district? Perhaps a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is the solution, either long term or short term. Each has its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages.

Regardless of these issues there will be ’1001 unexpected problems’ in any consolidation effort. Many of the hiccoughs or ‘bumps in the road’ can be anticipated, but some will inevitably hit you without warning.

If your district is contemplating a consolidation, do yourself, your district, and your taxpayers a favor by reviewing the issues long before any decision is made. Even before you might think to hire a consultant to analyze the pro’s and con’s of a consolidation, you should get some reliable information regarding the process, stumbling blocks, and troubles that you might face.

Crabtree Consulting Services, LLC, (CCS) can offer your district just this kind of information. CCS does NOT contract to manage consolidations, so it has no vested interest in any final decision that your district makes; however it does have consultants available to discuss the lessons learned from consolidation of fire departments in small communities. A couple of hours spent with CCS consultants in advance of any committment by a district will be money well spent. If you or your district is contemplating a consolidation, give CCS a call before you sign that contract with a project manager or consolidation consulting firm.

Click here to be taken to CCS’ website.
Click here to be taken to CCS Contact Page.

If a prospective employer finds out during the hiring process that an applicant was once party to a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit against a former employer, what are the prospectivve employer’s options?

While it might seem like a no-brainer, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made crystal clear that in such a situation any offer of employment made prior to that discovery could be legally withdrawn. The appeals court ruled that plaintiff Natalie Dellinger could not file an FLSA retaliation suit against Science Applications International Corp. when the company withdrew its employment offer after learning that she had sued a former employer for minimum wage and overtime violations of the FLSA.

The old lawsuit came to light when Dellinger filled out certain paperwork required for her security clearance. One form required her to “list any pending non-criminal court actions to which she was a party.” She did, and her employment offer was withdrawn shortly thereafter.

The FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision is intended to strengthen employees’ ability to assert their FLSA rights without fear of punishment by their employer. It makes it unlawful “to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee” (29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3)).

A lower district court had already agreed with Science Applications that Dellinger never worked a day for the company and was not an “employee” as defined in the FLSA — and its “anti-retaliation provision does not cover prospective employees.”

Dellinger argued that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision protects any employee that has been the victim of FLSA retaliation by “any person,” including future employers. But the appeals court clearly noted that “the FLSA gives an employee the right to sue only his or her current or former employer and that a prospective employee cannot sue a prospective employer for retaliation.”

The court said “the FLSA was intended at its core to provide minimum wages and maximum hours of work to ensure employees a minimum standard of living necessary for “health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers” (29 U.S.C. §202(a)). The anti-retaliation provision is included, not as a free-standing protection against any societal retaliation, but rather as an effort “to foster a climate in which compliance with the substantive provisions of the [FLSA] would be enhanced” (Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 293 (1960)). Thus, the anti-retaliation provision was meant to ensure that employees could sue to obtain minimum wages and maximum hours from their employers without the employers taking adverse action against them for the exercise of those rights.

Dellinger pointed out that there are other statutes that cover applicants as well as employees, including the Energy Reorganization Act, the National Labor Relations Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The court concluded that while it was “sympathetic to Dellinger’s argument that it could be problematic to permit future employers effectively to discriminate against prospective employees for having exercised their rights under the FLSA … [w]e have been unable to find any case that extends FLSA protections to applicants or prospective employees. Indeed, prior cases have reached the conclusion that we have, applying the anti-retaliation provision only within the employer-employee relationship.” (Dellinger v. Science Applications International Corporation, No.10-1499, 2011 WL 3528750 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011))

READ MORE HERE …