The employer does not require a claim or a right to wages due, scheduled or ahead of wages to be earned, unless the payment of those wages has been made. An authorization, necessary or executed in violation of the provisions of this section, is non-avenue between the employer and the worker. An employer violation of the provisions of this section is an offence. Payments for the settlement of sexual harassment claims that include a confidentiality provision are not deductible as commercial expenses under federal law. Under California law, the settlement of sexual harassment and other related claims cannot prevent the disclosure of factual information relating to claims filed in court or administrative authority. This law does not prohibit a provision that prevents the parties from disclosing the amount of the transaction. In addition, at the applicant`s request, the agreement may contain a provision limiting disclosure of the applicant`s identity, including facts that would lead to the determination of the applicant`s identity. The Federal Law on the Protection of Older Workers (OWBPA) and detailed rules set out specific requirements for the release of federal rights for age discrimination by workers aged 40 and over. The requirements include:a) a minimum period of 21 days (45 days for group intentions) to review and accept the agreement (b) a period of 7 days from the execution of the contract to revoke the acceptance; (c) a language that advises staff members to consult a lawyer and (d) a clear and understandable language throughout the agreement. The consideration for waiving federal rights to age discrimination must be greater than the consideration to which the worker would normally be entitled. The applicants argued that, in this case, the authorization was legally unsealed, to the extent that it freed up rights to wages actually due and unpaid and because it constituted an agreement to work for less than the overtime allowance actually due and unpaid.
The court rejected the applicants` argument: Chindarah argued that the statutes undershed any settlement of an overtime compensation dispute. The court found that no California state had dealt directly with this issue, but that federal jurisprudence supported the employer`s position. For example, in a federal proceeding in which a worker sued his employer for unpaid overtime, the regional court granted the employer`s request for a summary decision on the basis of the performance of a severance contract and the general dismissal of the employee. Reynov v. ADP Claims Services Group, Inc., No.C 06-2056 CW, 2007 WL 5307977 (N.D. Cal., 30.04.2007). Like Chindarah, the employee submitted that Section 206.5 had revoked the authorization. The regional court rejected this argument and stated that “wages are not due” if good faith is controversial as to whether they are due.
Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lower wage, any worker earning less than the legal minimum wage or the statutory overtime allowance applicable to the worker is entitled to recover, in a civil action, the outstanding balance of the total amount of that minimum wage or overtime pay, including interest, legal fees and legal fees. The employee`s right to lay a charge with a government agency and to testify before a government agency should state that it does not prevent the employee from laying a charge with or cooperating with a government agency, but the employee is not entitled to a recovery or discharge in such a procedure. Other rules are not new. For example, by law, employers generally cannot compromise on the rights to unpaid wages which, admittedly, correspond to the workers owed. The release of federal rights for age discrimination must be consistent with the detailed rules of federal law. There are also issues that do not apply only to the law
