Seyfarth Synopsis: In a tumultuous year full of social unrest, a pandemic, and a Presidential election, it is no wonder employers find themselves grappling with how—and whether—to regulate politics in the workplace. Options...more
10/9/2020
/ Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Employment Policies ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Freedom of Expression ,
Infectious Diseases ,
NLRA ,
NLRB ,
Political Campaigns ,
Political Expression ,
Political Speech ,
Protected Activity
Seyfarth Synopsis: With the most contentious election of our lifetimes fast approaching, we might expect employees to engage in political conduct and share strong, controversial opinions while off duty, especially on social...more
9/28/2020
/ At-Will Employment ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
First Amendment ,
Hiring & Firing ,
NLRA ,
NLRB ,
Off-Duty Employees ,
Political Expression ,
Political Speech ,
Protests ,
Social Media ,
State Labor Laws ,
Viewpoint Discrimination
Seyfarth Synopsis. As of January 1, 2020, AB 51 makes it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. But will AB 51 withstand...more
12/18/2019
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Conditional Job Offers ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
FEHA ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Regulations ,
Preemption ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws
Seyfarth Synopsis: Halloween was last week, and you probably thought all the scary ghouls and goblins were going to rest for another year. Do not relax just yet! This week, we discuss another process that can be scary for...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers are starting to consider “on demand” pay for employees. Before considering whether to implement an “on demand” pay program, employers should consider laws on wage deduction and wage assignment as...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: While targeted social media ads may help employers find potential applicants with specific skill sets, inartfully crafted ads may open the door to discrimination claims, particularly in California....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs’ lawyers routinely invoke Labor Code provisions to conduct pre-litigation discovery by seeking employment records. For employers that scramble to comply with these often burdensome demands, we...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: When confronted with a lawsuit naming an individual employee as a defendant, should California employers run from the employee or provide a defense? The duty to indemnify employees often leaves employers in...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Under California law, obesity can qualify as a disability if it has a physiological cause and limits a major life activity. Proving such a claim has been difficult. The First District Court of Appeal’s...more
1/2/2018
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ,
Appeals ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Disability Discrimination ,
Discrimination ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
FEHA ,
Harassment ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Reasonable Accommodation ,
Retaliation ,
Summary Judgment
Seyfarth Synopsis: California courts are often hostile towards defendants that seek to require litigious employees to honor their arbitration agreements. The defendant’s plight might seem more stark still if the defendant has...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On March 13, 2017, San Jose’s new “Opportunity to Work Ordinance” takes effect, requiring covered employers to offer additional hours to part-time employees before hiring new or temporary employees. As the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On November 8, 2016, San Jose voters approved the most recent local effort to dictate employment scheduling practices. Beginning in March 2017, San Jose employers must offer existing part-time employees...more
12/15/2016
/ Collective Bargaining ,
Local Ordinance ,
Minimum Wage ,
Notice Requirements ,
Part-Time Employees ,
Penalties ,
Record Retention ,
Secure Scheduling ,
Temporary Employees ,
Wage and Hour ,
Work Schedules
Seyfarth Synopsis: Within the last few years, the California Legislature has amended laws related to an employee’s right to inspect personnel records, intending to ensure employees have access to those records. Since then,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Under Labor Code section 202, California employers must pay all wages to an employee who “quits” within 72 hours, unless the employee has given 72 hours’ notice of the intent to quit, in which case the...more
With March Madness in full swing, we interrupt your crumbling tournament brackets to ensure you’re aware of a truly maddening development. California law now makes individuals potentially liable for employer violations of...more
We normally write about how California law differs from American law generally. Today, though, we highlight a recent California case that rejected the notion that California law should deviate from analogous federal wage and...more
On October 11—his very last day to sign or veto bills—Governor Brown vetoed the much-feared Assembly Bill 465. AB 465 would have banned mandatory agreements to arbitrate Labor Code claims as a condition of employment. At...more
10/22/2015
/ Arbitration ,
AT&T Mobility v Concepcion ,
Employment Contract ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Governor Brown ,
Governor Vetoes ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Mandatory Arbitration ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Preemption ,
SCOTUS
On August 31, the California Legislature passed AB 465, aiming to “ensure that a contract to waive any of the rights, penalties, remedies, forums, or procedures under the Labor Code”—such as an arbitration agreement—is “a...more
It is not every day that multi-million wage and hour class action judgments get reversed. But that is exactly what happened twice late last week in the Eighth Circuit in two cases against the same employer involving similar...more
9/1/2015
/ Appeals ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Damages ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
FRCP 23 ,
Non-Work Hours ,
Opt-Outs ,
Reversal ,
State Law Claims ,
Summary Judgment ,
Wage and Hour