A few weeks ago, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced a bill to implement a 32-hour workweek. While such a law is a long way from becoming a reality, it does raise interesting questions concerning exactly what a 32-hour...more
Seemingly with every passing day the California legislature adds more obligations (and opportunities for costly missteps) to California employers. This time we are discussing California Senate Bill 1162, dubbed California’s...more
10/26/2022
/ California ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Job Applicants ,
Labor Reform ,
New Legislation ,
Pay Data ,
Pay Discrimination ,
Pay Transparency ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
On September 18, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2188 into law, which prohibits employers from taking any adverse employment action against an employee in conjunction with an employee’s off-duty marijuana use....more
10/4/2022
/ California ,
Cannabis Products ,
Decriminalization of Marijuana ,
Drug Testing ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Governor Newsom ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Marijuana ,
New Legislation ,
Off-Duty Employees
On June 28, 2018, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA provided significant privacy rights and protections to California consumers and placed numerous...more
On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services and decided two critical questions: first, whether an employee is entitled to “waiting time...more
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District created a split in authority when they held that wage-and-hour lawsuits brought under California’s Private...more
On February 9, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 114 (“SB 114”), which entitles most California employees to a new bucket of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. The law will go into effect on...more
2/22/2022
/ California ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Governor Newsom ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Paid Leave ,
Sick Leave ,
State and Local Government ,
Vaccinations ,
Virus Testing
On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID vaccine-or-test rule for large employers. Although the OSHA rule is effectively off the...more
2/3/2022
/ Biden Administration ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employer Mandates ,
Health and Safety ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Infectious Diseases ,
Masks ,
OSHA ,
Vaccinations ,
Virus Testing ,
Workplace Safety
2021 was another important year for California employers. From decisions by the California Supreme Court regarding employees’ rights to premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks, to legislation expanding the scope of...more
Way back on October 10, 2019, California Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which essentially made it unlawful for California employers to require workers or job applicants to execute arbitration agreements...more
As more and more people receive the COVID-19 vaccine, employees are starting to ask questions about mask requirements. Mask requirements currently vary widely (and are changing frequently) depending on the state in which the...more
On March 19, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 95 (“SB 95”) which entitles most California employees to a new bank of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. The law will go into effect on March 29,...more
The California Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (“Sullivan”) and its more recent decisions in Ward v. United Airlines (“Ward”) and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Oman”) provided employers with a...more
On November 20, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standard Board adopted temporary regulations regarding measures that employers must undertake in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. ...more
The public health crisis caused by COVID-19 has caused lawmakers up and down California to consider new and previously unheard of ways to protect employees. While most of these methods have involved protections for existing...more
The 2020 presidential election, coupled with nationwide civil unrest and a global pandemic, is creating a lot of conversation in employees’ personal and professional lives. In a February 2020 survey, employees reported...more
California Assembly Bill 1867 (signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2020) and Senate Bill 1383 (signed on September 17, 2020) significantly expand the rights of California employees to both paid and...more
In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question...more
From the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex to the passage of dozens of new employment laws, 2019 was an important year for California employers. While some of these new laws were discussed here, this...more
1/8/2020
/ ABC Test ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Dynamex ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Regulations ,
Lactation Accommodation ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, thereby codifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee. This represents the...more
9/24/2019
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Dynamex ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Exemptions ,
Gig Economy ,
Governor Newsom ,
Independent Contractors ,
Joint Employers ,
Misclassification ,
Retroactive Application ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage Orders
With its decision last year in Dynamex, the California Supreme Court fundamentally changed the test for determining whether workers are properly classified as either employees or independent contractors. Specifically, and as...more
6/7/2019
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Gig Economy ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
Risk Assessment ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
California Business and Professions Code section 16600 invalidates any contract restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business. While this language has been understood to prohibit non-compete...more
Almost six months ago, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex, which dramatically altered the landscape pertaining to the classification of California workers as either employees or independent...more
In Connor v. First Student, Inc., the California Supreme Court resolved a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions relating to the constitutionality of California’s background check laws....more
In Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the California Supreme Court determined that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California wage claims. While this ruling does not completely eviscerate this legal defense for...more
7/30/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Civil Code ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Labor Code ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Starbucks ,
Timekeeping ,
Wage and Hour