Tag Archives: New Mexico

NEW LAW — Minimum Wage Increases for Certain New Mexico Localities

Employee Handbook, Employee Policies, Employment Relationship, EPL, Guidance for Human Resource Professional, Guidelines, Hiring, Hiring Practices, minimum wage, New Laws, New Mexico, Wage and Hour, , ,

Attention employers in Albuquerque and Unincorporated Bernalillo County, New Mexico:… minimum wage in these localities is increasing on January 1, 2019.

For employers in Albuquerque, minimum wage is increasing on January 1, 2019 as follows:

  • For employers that provide a certain amount of healthcare and/or childcare benefits, minimum wage is  increasing from $7.95 to $8.20 per hour (and is increasing from  $5.35 to $5.50 per hour for tipped employees) and
  • For employees not provided qualifying benefits, minimum wage is  increasing from $8.95 to $9.20 per hour (and is increasing from  $5.35 to $5.50 per hour for tipped employees).

Continue reading NEW LAW — Minimum Wage Increases for Certain New Mexico Localities →

Good News for New Mexico Employers — No Increased Minimum Wage for 2018

Employee Policies, Employment Relationship, EPL, Guidance for Human Resource Professional, Guidelines, minimum wage, New Laws, New Mexico, Wage and Hour, , , , , ,

New Mexico employers can breathe a collective sigh of relief.  New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez vetoed two separate bills (House Bill 442 and Senate Bill 386, which would have increased New Mexico’s minimum wage in 2018.

Specifically, Governor Martinez vetoed House Bill 442, which would have increased the minimum wage from $7.50 to $9.25 an hour, and Senate Bill 386, which would have raised the state’s minimum wage to $9.00 per hour.

What does this mean for New Mexico employers?

New Mexico’s minimum wage will remain $7.50 per hour (unless those employers are located in a city/county that has enacted a higher local minimum wage).

2017 Minimum Wage Increases — Cities and Counties

California, Employee Policies, Employment Relationship, EPL, Guidance for Human Resource Professional, Guidelines, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, State Issues, Washington, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an earlier article (“State Minimum Wage Increases for 2017“), we provided a breakdown of the increases to State minimum wage that are going into effect on January 1, 2017 (December 31, 2016 for New York).

In addition to these minimum wage increases, several cities (and some counties) have their own “local minimum wages” which are also increasing in the new year.

Minimum Wage as of November 21, 2016 Scheduled Increase for January 1, 2017
Arizona Cities
Flagstaff $8.05 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
California Cities/Counties
County of Los Angeles $10.00 No increase 1/1/17         To increase 7/1/17 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.50 No increase 1/1/17         To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
County/City of San Francisco $13.00 No increase 1/1/17 To increase 7/1/17 — $14.00
Berkeley Alameda County $12.53 No increase 1/1/17 To increase 10/1/17 — $13.75
Cupertino Santa Clara County $10.00 $12.00
El Cerrito Contra Costa County $11.60 $12.25
Emeryville Alameda County $13.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $14.00
small employer (55 or less)
large employer (56 or more) $14.82 No increase 1/1/17      May increase 7/1/17 based on CPI
Long Beach LA County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.50 No increase 1/1/17 To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
Los Altos Santa Clara County $10.00 $12.00
Los Angeles LA County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.50 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
Mailbu Los Angeles County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.50 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
Mountain View Santa Clara County $11.00 $13.00
Oakland Alameda County $12.55 No increase 1/1/17
Palo Alto Santa Clara County $11.00 No increase 1/1/17
Pasadena LA County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.50 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
Richmond Contra Costa County $11.52 $12.30
San Diego San Diego County $10.50 $11.50
San Jose Santa Clara County $10.30 No increase 1/1/17
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (101 or more) $10.30 $10.50
San Leandro Alameda County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
San Mateo San Mateo County $10.00 $12.00
For profit companies
small Non profit companies (25 or less) $10.00 No increase 1/1/17
large Non profit companies (26 or more $10.00 $10.50
Santa Clara Santa Clara County $11.00 No increase 1/1/17
Santa Monica LA County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.50 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $12.00
Sacramento Sacramento County $10.00 No increase 1/1/17         To increase 1/1/18 — $10.50
small employer (25 or less)
large employer (26 or more) $10.00 $10.50
Sunnyvale Santa Clara County $11.00 $13.00
Illinois Cities/Counties
Cook County $8.25 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.00
Chicago $10.50 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $11.00
Iowa Counties
Johnson County $9.15 $10.10
Linn County $7.25 $8.25
Polk County $7.25 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 4/1/17 — $8.75
Wapello County $7.25 $8.20
Maine Cities
Bangor $7.50 $9.00
Portland $10.10 $10.68
Maryland Counties
Montgomery County $10.75 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 10/1/17 — $11.50
Prince George’s County $10.75 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 10/1/17 — $11.50
New Mexico Cities/Counties
Bernalillo County $8.65 No increase 1/1/17
Santa Fe County $10.91 No increase 1/1/17
Albuquerque $8.75 No increase 1/1/17
Las Cruces $8.40 $9.20
Santa Fe $10.91 No increase 1/1/17
New York Cities/Counties
“Upstate” employers (excluding fast food employers) $9.00 for all employees but fast food employees $9.70
“Upstate” Fast Food employers $9.75 for fast food employees only $10.75
“Downstate” employers (excluding fast food employers) $9.00 for all employees but fast food employees $10.00
“Downstate” Fast Food employers $9.75 for fast food employees only $10.75
New York City “small” employers (excluding fast food employers) $9.00 for all employees but fast food employees $10.50
New York City “large” employers (excluding fast food employers) $9.00 for all employees but fast food employees $11.00
New York City Fast Food employers $9.75 for fast food employees only $12.00
~ “Upstate” = employers in all counties “upstate” from the greater NYC area              ~ “Downstate” = employers in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties                    ~ “Small” NYC employers = employers with 10 or fewer employees                            ~ “Large” NYC employers = employers with 11 or more employees
Oregon Cities/Counties
Nonurban Counties
 (Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa Wheeler counties)		 $9.50 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $10.00
Portland $9.75 No increase 1/1/17        To increase 7/1/17 — $11.25
Washington Cities
City of SeaTac (hospitality and transportation workers) $15.00 No increase 1/1/17
Seattle
small employer (500 or less) $12.00 $13.00
large employer (501 or more) $13.00 $15.00
Tacoma $10.35 $11.15

Recommendation for Employers

It is recommended that employers in the above-listed cities/counties prepare for these minimum wage increases.  In addition, if your city/county is not listed on this chart, we recommend that you check with your local Chamber of Commerce to determine the minimum wage in your city.

Caveat: Please be advised that this information is being provided as a courtesy and that ePlace Solutions, Inc. does not track local laws and ordinances and will not update this information with changes in local laws and ordinances.

DOL Partnership regarding worker misclassification — 34 States and Counting

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Department of Labor, Employee Policies, Employment Relationship, EPL, Federal Issues, Florida, Guidance for Human Resource Professional, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Independent Contractor, Independent Contractor, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thirty-five states have agreed to “team up” with the US Department of Labor to investigate worker misclassification. Is your state one of them?

In 2015, Department of Labor launched an initiative to combat the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. As a part of this initiative, the Department of Labor sought to partner with the state agencies and agree to share information and conduct joint investigations regarding independent contractor misclassification. To date, 35 states have entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding worker misclassification issues.

These states are:

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Florida
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming

What does this mean for employers in these states?

Employers in the above-listed states should expect collaborative efforts between their state agencies and the Department of Labor during a investigation into potential employee misclassification as the state and the Department of Labor will share information. This could lead to simultaneous, multi-agency investigations into worker classification. It is recommended that companies have qualified legal counsel review any existing independent contractor arrangements. In addition, before entering into an independent contractor relationship, speak with an HR Professional or qualified legal counsel to verify that the worker truly is an independent contractor.

New Mexico Employers Are Not Required to Accommodate Employee’s Lawful Medical Marijuana Use

ADA, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination/Harassment, Drug testing, Employee Health, Wellness, and Safety, Employee Policies, Employment Relationship, EPL, Federal Issues, Guidance for Human Resource Professional, Hiring, Hiring Practices, Layoff/Termination, New Mexico, Reasonable Accommodation, , ,

In an early 2016 decision (Garcia v. Tractor Supply Company), a federal district court has held that Tractor Supply Company did not violate New Mexico law or public policy by terminating an employee because the employee (lawfully) used medical marijuana.

In this case, the plaintiff (Garcia) had applied for employment with Tractor Supply Company and during the interview process, Garcia advised the hiring manager that he used medical marijuana to treat his medical condition. The employee was subsequently hired for the job and, as a part of the new hire process, was required to undergo a pre-employment drug test. Not surprisingly, the employee tested positive for marijuana use and the Company terminated the employee.

Following his termination, the employee filed a lawsuit against the Company claiming he was unlawfully discriminated against due to his serious medical condition and his physicians’ recommendation to use medical marijuana as a treatment for his medical condition.

In dismissing Garcia’s lawsuit, the Court found that requiring Tractor Supply to accommodate Garcia’s use of medical marijuana would require it to permit conduct that is prohibited under federal law, which is simply not the case.

The Court held that employers in New Mexico are under no duty to accommodate the use of medical marijuana by employees. This decision follows the holdings of similar cases in California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon and Washington.