« January 2018 | Main | March 2018 »

February 2018


///アメリカ 人事#26/// 悩み多き米国進出


●連邦、州、都市ごとに違う最低賃金(段階的に最低賃金$15へ Cityごとに違う最低賃金)
●医療費(入院1日 100万円〜2千万円等)



インターンなのか?従業員なのか?インターンとして認められるには下記の7つの項目を十分満たすことが必要とDepartment of Labor(労働省)から新たな要素が発表された。









DOL, Ninth Circuit Adopt New Test for Unpaid Interns
^ Return to top
Employers with unpaid interns are familiar with the potential perils: Misclassify someone as an unpaid intern when the individual should be a paid employee, and you could face a whole host of issues.
For years, a six-part test adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and followed by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) helped California employers determine whether an individual could be treated as an unpaid intern. But that test is on its way out the door.
The DOL has announced that it’s abandoning the six-part test in favor of a new “primary beneficiary” test — a position that’s consistent with decisions from several federal circuit courts, including the Ninth Circuit, that have rejected the old test in favor of this “primary beneficiary” test.
Out with the Old
On January 5, 2018, the DOL issued a press release stating it would no longer follow the six-part test, which required all of the following six factors to be met before an individual could be treated as an unpaid intern under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the employer’s facilities, is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment;
2. The internship experience is for the intern’s benefit;
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.
If all six factors were met, the individual would not be an employee under the FLSA and would not be subject to federal minimum wage or overtime requirements. In other words, the individual could be treated as an unpaid intern.
California’s DLSE has followed the DOL’s six-part test, both in its Enforcement Manual and opinion letters addressing the issue of unpaid interns. But in recent years, federal courts have been moving away from the six-part test, prompting the DOL to play catch-up and revise its stance.
Courts Shift Away from Six-Part Test
In recent years, several federal courts rejected the six-part test in favor of the “primary beneficiary” test, which is designed to look at the “economic reality” of the intern-employer relationship to determine which party is the relationship’s primary beneficiary — the employer or the individual.
This new test was first adopted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures. Inc. 791 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2015). Then in December 2017, the Ninth Circuit became the latest federal court to reject the DOL’s six-part test when it ruled that students at a cosmetology school were the “primary beneficiaries” of their relationship with the school and thus were not employees (Benjamin v. B&H Education, Inc., 877 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2017)).
Primary Beneficiary Test Factors
The DOL has chosen to follow these courts’ lead, and in January 2018 released a revised Fact Sheet #71 that explains the "primary beneficiary test."
There are seven factors to consider:
1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee — and vice versa.
2. The extent to which the internship provides training similar to that given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the internship’s conclusion.
As the DOL explains in its Fact Sheet, the primary beneficiary test is "a flexible test, and no single factor is determinative . . . whether an intern or student is an employee under the FLSA necessarily depends on the unique circumstances of each case."
Applying the Primary Beneficiary Test
In the recent case of Benjamin v. B&H Education, Inc., students enrolled at Marinello Schools of Beauty, a for-profit cosmetology school, sued the school, alleging wage and hour violations.
At Marinello, students received classroom instruction necessary to obtain their cosmetology license. The school also provided students with clinical experience by having the students perform discounted cosmetology services for the public in the school’s salons. The students claimed the school "exploited" them for the unpaid labor they provided in the salons. They argued they were employees under federal, Nevada and California law, and were therefore entitled to wage and hour protections such as minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest breaks.
In deciding the case, the Ninth Circuit used the primary beneficiary test to determine who was the primary beneficiary of the relationship — the school or the students. The court examined the aforementioned seven factors and found that:
The students signed on to the program knowing they wouldn’t be paid and they had no expectation of being paid;
The students received hands-on training and academic credit for the hours they worked;
The students’ clinical work corresponded to their academic commitments;
The school didn’t require the students to participate in the program any longer than the students needed to obtain the hours required for their state exams;
The students didn’t displace the work of paid employees; and
The students had no expectation of employment after graduating from the school.
Most, if not all, of the factors weighed in favor of the students being the primary beneficiaries of their work. As such, the court held that the students were not employees, under the eiter the FLSA or Nevada law (which follows the FLSA).
The students also alleged that they qualified as employees under California law. However, the court concluded that the California Supreme Court would follow a test such as the "primary beneficiary test" — not the DOL’s six-part test — because "it is better adapted to an occupational training setting than the DOL factors." The court held that under such a test, the students would not be employees subject to California wage and hour law protections.
Best Practices
Employers using or considering the use of unpaid interns should carefully evaluate the work interns will be performing. Employers should take into account the new seven factor test outlined above to determine who will be the primary beneficiary of the intern-employer relationship — and if the employer benefits most from the arrangement, the individual should be treated as an employee.
Also, even if you have properly classified someone as an unpaid intern, remember that interns are entitled to certain protections under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which:
Provides protections against harassment to unpaid interns and volunteers;
Provides protections against discrimination in an unpaid internship or in another limited duration program that provides unpaid work experience; and
Extends religious belief protections and religious accommodation requirements to anyone in an apprenticeship training program, an unpaid internship or any other program to provide unpaid experience in the workplace or industry.





Employer-provided health coverage is important for recruiting, but even more important for retention.


A new survey shows that:


56 percent of U.S. adults with employer-sponsored health benefits said that whether or not they like their health coverage is a key factor in deciding to stay at their current job.
46 percent said health insurance was either the deciding factor or a positive influence in choosing their current job.



///Philosophy ニューズレター217/// 労災保険料の計算の仕方

毎毎お世話になりまして ありがとうございます。










· 米国主要州・市の人事・労務関連法 2018年前後に施行される法律は?

· President's Day オフィスがクローズしている会社は何パーセント?

· 【動画】///アメリカ 人事 #25/// 人事 7つの基本プロセス

· 個人事業主(1099での支払)なのか? 従業員なのか?

· BREAKING: Jury Awards Ex-UCLA Doctor $13M In Gender, Age Bias Trial






· IRS Rate

· I-9 SSNのドキュメント

· Education Loan Benefit

· 怒鳴る従業員の解雇

· 退職した従業員のWorkers Compについて

· 人事記録の保存年数について

· Per Diemの額の平均について

· 過去の給与履歴質問禁止で希望給与は質問できるか?

· Probationの後に正式採用は可能か?

· Exemptは代休を取得できるか?

· Exemptは2時間医者に行く際にはPaid Sick Leaveを使うべきか?

· Exemptは2時間ランチタイムをとってもよいか?

· FLSAの詳細が確認できるWebサイトを教えて下さい

· 残業をする場合は上司の許可を得ることを強制できるか?

· 許可なく残業した場合は残業分の賃金を支払うことを拒否できるか?

· 露出が過多な服装をする従業員がいるがどうしたらよいか?

· 勤務時間中に携帯電話を使う従業員がいるがどうしたらよいか?

· 勤務時間中に机の上でお菓子を食べる従業員がいるがどうしたらよいか?

· 自己都合の退職の場合は失業保険が出ますか?

· パフォーマンスが悪い従業員の解雇へのアプローチ

· Leave of Absenceで休んでいる従業員の解雇について

· 育児休暇の取得について

· 2018年の新しい法律、美容師の最低賃金とコミッションについて

· Exemptのスタッフが希望によりNon-Exemptになることが可能か?


毎月$300 にてemailで無制限にご相談できるプランをご用意しております。





///Philosophy ニューズレター 217号///


山口 憲和 (保険と労務 アメリカ版 社労士です)

■You Tubeで必ずチェックするのは・・・




群馬県出身。高崎高校を卒業後 タモリの中国語麻雀に憧れて


卒業後 日本のANA (全日空)で旅行代理店向けセールスを担当。


Human Resourcesに関心が高まり本格的に勉強するためにANAを退職し、

慶應義塾大学 大学院 経営管理研究科 修士課程 (MBA)に入学。

卒業後はIBM JAPANのコンサルティング部門へ。その後、

自分の最も関心の高かったHuman Resources専門のMercer


Mercer時代に共著『A&R  優秀人材の囲い込み戦略』東洋経済新報社

があります。http://amzn.to/2rhTeuf (今や中古で●●円!)










1. ビジネス保険

 ビジネスが最初にオフィスや店舗をリースする際にはビジネス保険(General Liability)に加入することが家主(Land Lord)から求められます。先ずはビジネス保険のお手伝い(ブローカー)を致します。

2. 労災保険 (Workers Comp)


3. Employee Handbookの作成


ルールをまとめたEmployee Handbookの作成をお手伝い致します。

4. 労務管理サービス(顧問契約)



5. 医療保険






7. 給与計算+労務管理+保険 アウトソーシングサービス





▼ 従業員数や業種によって対応可能な場合と対応できない場合がございます。

▼ 詳しくは下記宛てにメールで御連絡下さい。




★★★【本業に集中したい方 人事管理のリスクを半分に】★★★

Philosophy LLCは下記のPEO各社と提携し、










Philosophy LLC

Philosophy Insurance Services









■Mission of Philosophy

弊社の経営理念は 世のため、人のため、世界平和のため、



For people, for society, and for the world peace,

We will make Clients and Team members Happy in Monetarily and in soul.

●労務管理サービス チームメンバーご紹介

Philosophy LLC 副社長 山口真智子


▼企業向け医療保険チーム Team Alliance 360(写真はこちらから)


▼企業向けリタイアメントチーム Team APS (写真はこちらから)



Norikazu (Kazu) Yamaguchi

CA Insurance License: 0F78137



■お気軽にお問い合わせ下さい e-mail: yamaguchi@yourphilosophy.net

■会社情報はWeb: http://www.philosophyllc.com/


Philosophy LLC (Human Resources Services)

Philosophy Insurance Services (Insurance Services)

Affiliate with Alliance 360

2377 Crenshaw Blvd., Ste 315

Torrance, CA 90501

TEL 310-465-9173

FAX 310-356-3352

1900 Camden Avenue, Suite 101

San Jose, CA 95124

TEL 408-600-0685


Disclaimer: Please note that Norikazu Yamaguchi makes every effort to offer accurate, common-sense, ethical Human Resources management, employer, workplace and Insurance information on this email, but Norikazu Yamaguchi is not an attorney, and the content on this email is not to be construed as legal advice. When in doubt, always seek legal counsel. The information on the email is provided for guidance only, never as legal advice. We will not be responsible for any damages caused by using this information.

免責事項:山口憲和は、このメールの正確で常識的、倫理的な人事管理、雇用者、職場、保険情報を提供するために万全を期していますが、山口憲和は弁護士ではなく、このメールの内容は 法的助言として解釈できません。 不確かな場合は、常に弁護士に相談してください。 この電子メール上の情報は、ガイダンスのためだけに提供されており、決して法的助言として提供されるものではありません。この情報を利用して損害が生じた場合でも弊社では責任を負いかねますのでご了承下さい。


米国主要州・市の人事・労務関連法 2018年前後に施行される法律は?

米国主要州・市の人事・労務関連法 2018年前後に施行される法律は?




President's Day オフィスがクローズしている会社は何パーセント?

President's Day オフィスがクローズしている会社は何パーセント?






///アメリカ 人事 #25/// 人事 7つの基本プロセス

///アメリカ 人事 #25/// 人事 7つの基本プロセス


個人事業主(1099での支払)なのか? 従業員なのか?

個人事業主(1099での支払)なのか? 従業員なのか?




BREAKING: Jury Awards Ex-UCLA Doctor $13M In Gender, Age Bias Trial

BREAKING: Jury Awards Ex-UCLA Doctor $13M In Gender, Age Bias Trial

A Los Angeles jury on Thursday awarded $13 million to a former UCLA oncologist who claims she was forced to take a job elsewhere after complaining about disparate treatment because of her gender, though it found in favor of the school on an age discrimination claim.



///アメリカ 人事 #24/// 労災保険の保険料計算方法について




///アメリカ人事 #23/// ゴール設定 3つのポイント

///アメリカ人事 #23/// ゴール設定 3つのポイント
●ゴール設定 3つのポイント
●Cal/OSHA Form 300A 2/1~4/30掲示義務
●1095はTax Returnで利用
●#MeToo キャンペーン対策について



#MeTooキャンペーンとDating Policy

#MeTooキャンペーンの動きに対応して社内のDating Policyを見直す動きが出て来ている。

通常Dating Policyには下記のような内容が含まれるが、この内容を分かりやすく論理的に整理する動きが出ている。


Review Dating Policy in Light of #MeToo Movement
Dating policies have become pretty common among employers of all sizes. But with the advent of the #MeToo movement, legal experts say employers should give their policies another look to be sure they are logical, easy to follow and are presented in the best light to employees.

The policy's goal of upholding appropriate boundaries between personal and business relationships.
The employer's decision whether to prohibit or just discourage fraternization between managers and subordinates.
The requirement to report participation in such relationships, including those with vendors and other business associates.
The employer's right to modify reporting structures, such as transferring a boss who is in a relationship with a subordinate.
The prohibition on physical contact between employees during work hours.
The employer's anti-harassment policy and harassment-reporting mechanisms.



« January 2018 | Main | March 2018 »