California Delivers More Flexibility With Alternative Workweek Schedules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.30.09
As companies look for ways to restructure their workforces and minimize operating costs in creative ways during this economic downturn, California has made welcome revisions and clarifications to its existing law regarding "alternative workweek arrangements." These alternative workweek schedules, governed by California Labor Code § 500 et seq., are unique to California and allow non-exempt employees to work more than eight hours per day without incurring daily overtime. New legislation, Assembly Bill No. 5 ("AB 5"), effective May 21, 2009, amends California Labor Code § 511, further aligning the law with the realities of business operations and making alternative workweek arrangements more attractive to employees.
Labor Code § 511 allows for customized schedules better suited for employers' business needs and for employees' desires for greater flexibility without the cost prohibitive effects of overtime payments. An employer can implement these alternative workweek schedules, after proper disclosures, through statutory and regulatory procedures following a two-thirds vote of all affected employees in a work unit. Under the current law, an employer can propose an alternative workweek in the form of a single schedule that would become the standard schedule for all workers in the work unit or, alternatively, a "menu" of schedules from which each employee in the work unit can choose. The proposed menu can include any combination of hours up to twelve per day within a workweek as long as overtime is paid for all hours over ten in a day and over forty in a workweek.
Prior to the enactment of AB 5, the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") interpreted the language of Labor Code § 500(c) to preclude an employer from offering as part of its menu the option of a regular 8-hour day and from allowing an employee to rotate between the proposed alternative schedules. The new language of AB 5, however, expressly allows for these options. An employer will be able to offer a regular 8-hour day as part of its menu, and employees, with their employer's consent, can switch back and forth between the proposed menu options on a weekly basis. These new provisions greatly increase the likelihood that such a proposed alternative workweek schedule will receive sufficient votes for passage.
Alternative workweek arrangements are not intended for the few employees within a department who want flexibility in their schedules. With limited industry-specific exceptions, every employee within a work unit must work the alterative workweek schedule. Labor Code § 511, however, has lacked any definition of "work unit." AB 5 now clarifies this by defining "work unit" as "a division, a department, a job classification, a shift, a separate physical location, or a recognized subdivision thereof." Under this newly-added definition, a single employee may also qualify as a "work unit" so long as that employee's position satisfies the criteria for an identifiable work unit, such as a one-person human resources department.
Creating an alternative workweek schedule requires meticulous planning and thorough recordkeeping. There are significant variations among the industry-specific California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Orders interpreting these laws, with respect to both the schedules which may be adopted and the election procedures which must be followed. A careful review of the relevant provisions, IWC Orders and DLSE opinions must be made in order to ensure compliance with the governing law. Failure to comply with even a single requirement could cause the California Labor Commissioner to invalidate the alternative workweek schedule resulting in considerable back overtime awards to those employees who worked the invalidated alternative schedule. If you are thinking of proposing an alternative workweek arrangement, or have questions regarding the new amendments, please contact any of the attorneys listed below or your usual Crowell & Moring contact.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
