Until the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana in 2022, California law had established that Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims could not be subject to binding arbitration.  With Viking River, however, employers were free to begin compelling “individual” PAGA claims to arbitration and, based on subsequent California case law, leaving the remaining “representative” PAGA action stayed in Superior Court pending an outcome of the individual arbitration.

Based on this precedent, the employer in Ford v. Silver F, Inc.

Less than a year ago, the California Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. opined, in the context of employment arbitration agreements, that there is no bright line rule that requires a court to refuse enforcement if a contract has more than one unconscionable term.  Rather, the appropriate inquiry is qualitative.  “At the outset, a court should ask whether the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality. [Citations]. If so, the contract cannot be cured, and the court should refuse to enforce it.”  This ruling gave lower courts the power to ...

The case of Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services LTD., LLC typifies the reason employers and employment counsel must stay on top of arbitration case developments. 

The Second District Court of Appeals in California in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. recently decided that all Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) actions necessarily have “individual” and “representative” components, regardless of whether individual claims are pleaded.  This holding was significant because employers could then compel arbitration of the otherwise absent individual PAGA claims ...

The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) was intended to allow employees to bring actions on behalf of the State of California against employers who failed to comply with Labor Code sections that were considered underenforced. This well-intentioned goal ultimately became a wrecking ball, tearing down California employers with an onerous penalty scheme that could cripple the average employer.

After a concerted effort to amend the PAGA statute last year via ballot initiative, the California Legislature compromised with California businesses and passed reforms

Since its enactment in 2019, Code of Civil Procedure 1281.98, which governs arbitration fee payments, has been inviolate: arbitrators do not have the unilateral power to extend the fee payment deadline; “checks in the mail” do not satisfy the 30-day payment deadline; there are no extensions based on the date or method by which the invoice was issued; and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) may not preempt the California Arbitration Act, or the statutory fee payment deadline.

Despite these rulings, employers and their counsel continue to search for some reprieve against ...

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “Act”), a federal law, is unique for its role in overriding the policy in favor of the enforcement of arbitration agreements.  The Act was legislated so that victims of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace would be entitled to their day in court, rather than behind the closed doors of a private arbitration, if that is what they prefer.  As such, where the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies, so too does the Act.

Recently, however, the California Court of Appeal was posed the ...

Readers of this blog are, by now, aware of California’s judicial and legislative hostility toward arbitration.  Over the last few months, however, employers have seen a surprising number of appellate victories in their respective bids to enforce valid arbitration agreements with their employees.  The recent opinion in Vo v. Technology Credit Union continues this recent trend.

Prior to Vo, it had been well-established that, absent an explicit reference to the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) which includes provisions providing for discovery in arbitration, an ...

There is no greater threat to an employment arbitration than Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which mandates that the party who drafted the arbitration agreement pay the fees and costs of the arbitration within 30 days after the due date.  A failure to do so will result in a “material breach” of the arbitration agreement, which will entitle the non-drafting party (i.e., the employee) the right to withdraw from the arbitration and obtain onerous sanctions against the drafting party (i.e., employer). Employers have no room for error under this statute. 

 In every case prior to ...

Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises Inc. v. Moriana, California courts did not consider the components of a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim.  In the Viking River opinion, the Court delineated between a “representative PAGA claim” – referring to a PAGA claim based on violations that employees other than the plaintiff had suffered – and an “individual PAGA claim”, which referred to a portion of a PAGA action that is “based on code violations suffered by the plaintiff.”  The California Supreme Court followed ...

Tell me if you have heard this one before: ten companies are sued by a former employee as “joint employers”, even though the employee technically worked for, and signed a binding arbitration agreement with, only one of them.  The employers then move to compel arbitration and the employee opposes the motion.  The trial court grants or denies the motion to compel and the losing party (or parties) appeal(s).  If this sounds familiar, it is because there are no less than six published appellate court decisions have come down in recent years that have wrestled with the issue of whether joint ...

Los Angeles County:

In 2016, the city of Los Angeles passed the Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance (FCIHO).  Preempting California’s Fair Chance Act (FCA) by nearly two years, the FCIHO prohibits private employers operating in the city of Los Angeles from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history on job applications or postings.  The first instance in which such an inquiry can be made is after a conditional offer of employment is extended.  An employer that wishes to withdraw an offer of employment based on criminal history must first engage in a defined “Fair ...

In 2022, Congress enacted the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” (the “Act”) which provides that, at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, “no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.”  (9 U.S.C. § 402, emphasis added).  

In two recent cases, Doe v ...

California law has long held that an employer’s good faith dispute over wages owed, if any, to its employees will preclude the imposition of “waiting time” penalties otherwise due following the termination of their employment.  This year, employers received a rare, gift-wrapped ruling that expanded this maxim.

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court resolved a split in judicial opinion regarding whether a similar good faith belief could negate penalties under Labor Code section 226 for knowingly and intentionally failing to report ...

In 2003, the California Supreme Court adopted a stringent test to determine whether an employer had waived its right to compel arbitration of an employee’s claims.  The most critical, and often determinative, factor was “prejudice” to the party resisting arbitration.  In other words, the courts were obligated to determine whether the party resisting arbitration had been prejudiced by the other party’s behavior – typically manifested through inordinate delay or litigation gamesmanship.

The facts in the recent case of Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., in which ...

Live events are part and parcel of California’s landscape.  From Coachella to county fairs, thousands of workers each year participate in setting up and tearing down the infrastructure at these public event venues.  Widely reported tragedies related to this work in years’ past, combined with the temporary nature of these entertainment events, have prompted the California legislature to promulgate additional protections for this class of workers through the recently enacted Assembly Bill 2738.

Effective immediately, as part of the contract for production of any live event at ...

California has a habit of finding creative ways to protect employees from potential instances of discrimination or retaliation, no matter how remote.  Senate Bill 399, pointedly titled the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act” (“SB 399”), furthers this tradition by prohibiting employers from subjecting an employee to, or threatening an employee with, discharge, discrimination, or retaliation because the employee declines to attend a mandatory employer-sponsored meeting or otherwise refuses to listen to the employer’s communications ...

In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward.  That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., clarified the standards of “procedural” and “substantive” unconscionability in these agreements.  While Armendariz is commonly cited for its holdings on these different types of unconscionability, a lesser aspect of the holding, which was largely unremarked upon for nearly 25 years, dealt with the issue of severing unconscionable ...

Arbitration agreements, at their core, are contracts. As with any contract, there must be “mutuality” or, more colloquially, a “meeting of the minds” on what the contract is intended to encompass. For this reason, employment arbitration agreements are typically limited in scope and drafted to cover only claims or causes of action arising from or related to the relationship between the employee and employer.

 A recent case involving the University of Southern California illustrates the importance of careful drafting. An issue in Cook v. University of Southern California

Since its enactment, California courts have universally established the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 et seq., which governs the timely payment of fees in arbitration, allows no room for error. Within the last two months, the California Court of Appeals issued two competing decisions addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), and by extension the statutory fee payment deadline set forth in section 1281.97.

In this corner, fighting for federal preemption, is Hernandez v. Sohnen ...

        Over the last decade, the use of e-signatures has become the norm for human resources departments when onboarding new employees.  The advent of resources like DocuSign, Taleo, BabooHR, and others have made this process simple, efficient, and very user friendly.  But with these technological advances comes increased scrutiny from California courts – particularly when evaluating electronically signed arbitration agreements.

            Generally, for an e-signed arbitration agreement to be enforced, an employer must demonstrate, beyond a “preponderance of evidence”, that the ...

If you missed our last reminder, there is less than a week for most California employers to finalize and implement Workplace Violence Prevention Plans (“WVPP”) and have their employees trained on the company-specific policies by July 1, 2024.

As part of implementing the Workplace Violence Prevention Plan, an employer’s designated “Crime/Workplace Violence Prevention Coordinator(s)” must physically go through each office or workplace and identify potential areas of concern or improvement and record their efforts in doing so.

Similarly, each Crime/Workplace ...

As we previously reported, the California Legislature amended several statutes regulating employer workplace safety policies, including existing injury and illness prevention plans, to also include a new, separate requirement for a “Workplace Violence Prevention Plan.” With few exceptions, California employers must have such a plan in place by July 1, 2024. 

Cal/OSHA has promulgated an initial set of standards and a model template for such a plan, which can be found here. These standards must be submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) by no ...

Despite its best efforts, the California Legislature has been unable to substantially curtail the popularity of employment arbitrations in California.  The hostility to employment arbitration remains evident, however, among the California courts.  This is illustrated by the recent decision of the California Court of Appeals in Vazquez v. SaniSure, Inc.

In Vazquez, an employee was initially hired by an employer for almost two years between 2019 and 2021.  During this period of employment, she was required to sign a binding arbitration agreement. The agreement provided that ...

In 2022, Congress enacted the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” (the “Act”) which provides that, at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, “no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.”  (9 U.S.C. § 402).       

The California Court of Appeals recently ...

The California Court of Appeals recently revisited the issue of the draconian deadline for paying arbitration fees established by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97.  In Suarez v. Superior Court of San Diego County, the new twist that prompted appellate court review was that the 30-day grace period to pay the arbitration fees ended on January 1, 2023.  Because January 1, 2023 was a holiday, the employer argued that the arbitration payment deadline was extended by statute under Code of Civil Procedure sections 12 and 1010.6.

More specifically, and among several ...

Until recently, California courts were split on whether Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims could be dismissed for a lack of “manageability” – referring to the practicality of effectively conducting a trial on the issues.  Like class actions, PAGA actions generally purport to represent a significant number of an employer’s current and former employees.  However, there are important distinctions between class and PAGA actions, which caused California’s appellate courts to issue conflicting opinions on how PAGA cases should be adjudicated.  The ...

As part of a focused effort by the California Legislature to protect employees from unenforceable non-compete clauses and agreements and increase fair competition among employers in 2024, Assembly Bill 1076 enacted Business and Professions Code section 16600.1.

In addition to any other Valentine’s Day plans that employers may have, all employers that provided any agreement with an unlawful non-compete clause or otherwise executed an unlawful non-compete agreement with its employees who were employed after January 1, 2022 must provide written notice to each employee or ...

        Employee claims of retaliation in the workplace have been on an upward trend since the California Legislature amended Labor Code section 1102.5 to include protections for whistleblower complaints made directly to a person with authority over the complaining employee or to another employee with authority to investigate the claims alleged.  Senate Bill 497, which goes into effect on January 1, 2024, will serve to permit claims for employees alleging retaliation in the workplace under not only Labor Code section 1102.5, but also sections 98.6 (engaging in protected activity related ...

            Over the past few years, this blog has followed the California Legislature’s concerted efforts to vitiate employment arbitrations in the state.  Senate Bill 365 is the next in line.  This bill amends Code of Civil Procedure section 1294(a) to state that, while an aggrieved party may appeal from an order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration, “the perfecting of such an appeal shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.” (Emphasis added). 

            Although a small change to a short statute, the effects may be ...

          The California Legislature has sought in recent years to expand the rights of employees in nearly every facet of business in California.  Employer restrictions on an employee’s ability to work in the same industry after employment ends have been no exception.  As a result of the 2023 legislative term, two bills limiting post-employment restrictions on employees. In addition to Senate Bill 699, which voids noncompete agreements of out-of-state employee seeking work in California, Assembly Bill 1076 was signed into law. 

            AB 1076 amends Business Code Section 16600 and creates ...

Senate Bill 616, which was signed into law by Governor Newsom this month, amends existing law regarding paid sick leave to California employees. 

The Essentials:

Beginning January 1, 2024 –

• The number of paid sick days per year will be increased to 40 hours or 5 days, whichever is greater (increased from 24 hours or 3 days).
• Employers may cap an employee’s use of paid sick leave to 40 hours or 5 days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period (increased from 24 hours or 3 days).
• Employers may cap paid sick leave carryover accrual at 80 hours or 10 days, whichever is greater ...

You may have heard the half-serious joke that California acts as its own independent country.  One example of this is California’s strong disfavor of non-compete agreements, which stands in contrast with the rest of the country which permits these agreements to varying degrees.

California has leaned further into its famed independence with the passage of Senate Bill 699, which will go into effect on January 1, 2024.  SB 699 seeks to strengthen California’s existing ban against non-compete agreements set forth in Business and Professions Code section 16600 which simply states ...

Following the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, California courts were tasked with the open question of whether an “aggrieved” employee whose individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims are subject to an arbitration agreement has standing to represent other similarly aggrieved employees in Superior Court.  In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the California Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative; a representative employee’s standing to represent others is not affected by any existing ...

In law school, aspiring attorneys are taught fundamental concepts related to contracts, including “agency”, “third party beneficiary”, and “equitable estoppel”, terms which relate to determining who should be subject to the terms of a contract.  In Hernandez v. Meridian Management Services, LLC, the California Court of Appeals referred back to these law school basics in denying a motion to compel arbitration brought by a number of companies who were alleged to be “joint employers” of an employee, but who were not signatories to an arbitration agreement between ...

Until recently, employers had the luxury of interpreting the outside salesperson exemption to minimum wage, overtime and meal and rest period requirements at face value.  This is because the definition of an “outside salesperson” is simply codified as “any person, 18 years of age or over, who customarily and regularly works more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services, or use of facilities.” 

However, in Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc.

In the 2020 general election, Californians passed Proposition 22, which gave ride-sharing and delivery app companies such as Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash the ability to continue classify their drivers as independent contractors.  Shortly after the proposition passed, a group of drivers challenged its constitutionality.  At its core, the issue is whether drivers in the gig economy should be entitled to the benefits typically afforded to employees.  As independent contractors, these workers forgo such benefits in exchange for the right to set their own work schedule and receive ...

Over the last few years, employers throughout the United States have enjoyed some measure of protection from former employees who signed severance agreements.These agreements routinely contained a confidentiality provision that restrains former employees from disclosing the contents of the agreement to third parties other than (1) a spouse; (2) professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice; or (3) if legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.  These agreements also typically contained a ...

The saga of challenges to mandatory employment arbitration agreements is almost over. After three years of challenges, the United States Chamber of Commerce successfully appealed the enactment and enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which was originally intended to take effect on January 1, 2020. This piece of legislation would have banned the use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, and went so far as to include civil and criminal penalties on employers who violated the statute. 

After a federal district court granted a ...

Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2448 into law, which will enact Civil Code section 51.17. The law requires the Civil Rights Department (formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing) to establish a pilot program to recognize businesses that promote or create environments free from discrimination and harassment of customers.  Recognition will come in the form of a certificate the department would issue to qualifying businesses that may be prominently displayed on site. The department would also publish on its internet website a list of businesses receiving the ...

Effective January 1, 2023, Senate Bill 1044 will prohibit employers from taking or threatening adverse action against any employee for refusing to report to, or leaving, a workplace or worksite during an “emergency condition” when the employee has a reasonable belief that the workplace or worksite is unsafe.  An “emergency condition” means the existence of either: (1) conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property at the workplace or worksite caused by natural forces or a criminal act; or (2) an order to evacuate a workplace, a worksite, a ...

Since its enactment in 2020, employers have been forced to be mindful of the burdensome imposition of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 et seq., which requires an employer to pay the full amount of arbitration fees within 30 days of an arbitrator’s invoice being due, unless the arbitration agreement specifies a different deadline. In a recent opinion titled Espinoza v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeals clarified that this deadline must be strictly followed and there is no leeway for “substantial compliance.” 

In Espinoza, a defendant employer failed to pay the ...

Among other protections and rights, employees are entitled to the use of suitable seats when the “nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats” pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders. As recently as 2016, the California Supreme Court detailed a fact-intensive framework and multi-factor test to assist employers with the determination of when the nature of the work permits the use of seats.  However, the question of how to determine whether an employee was in fact “provided” suitable seating by his or her employer remained unresolved.

Employers throughout California have been keenly awaiting the final decision from the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the United States Chamber of Commerce’s challenge to California Labor Code section 432.6, which is designed to prohibit employers from enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements or requiring them as a condition of employment.

In our last report, the 9^th Circuit was awaiting the decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Moriana v. Viking River Cruises case, which also addressed the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act’s ...

As we reported on June 30, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to adopt a Healthcare Workers Minimum Wage Ordinance, which was designed to increase the minimum wage for workers of private healthcare facilities in Los Angeles to $25.00 per hour (the “ LA Ordinance”). The Ordinance would have gone into effect on August 13, 2022, but for a referendum petition against the ordinance filed on August 10, 2022. Similar ordinances have been passed in Long Beach, Monterey Park, and Downey. Like the LA Ordinance, the ordinance in Downey is also the subject of a referendum.

As a ...

Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) actions are the proverbial boogeyman to California employers.  On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court reined in some of this statute’s bite by holding that “aggrieved employees” who signed arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) cannot split their individual claims and their PAGA claims by proceeding with arbitration for the former and a court action for the latter.  An enforceable arbitration agreement will cover all claims, including PAGA claims, raised by the representative ...

In the words of Tom Cruise’s character Lt. Daniel Kaffee in A Few Good Men, “the hits keep on coming.” This quote crystallizes how California employers will undoubtedly feel following the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., decided on May 23, 2022.

Initially decided by the Second Appellate District in 2019, Naranjo previously stood for the proposition that failure to provide missed meal and rest break premium pay did not entitle employees to pursue waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 or paystub violation ...

Since the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC in 2014, it has been widely understood that Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”) actions cannot be subject to employment arbitration agreements. The rationale for this decision has been that PAGA actions are unique in that the employee that brings the claim is not acting in an individual capacity, but rather acts as a representative for the Attorney General on behalf of the State of California.  For that reason, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which would otherwise preempt ...

On the same day that the United States Supreme Court imposed a stay of enforcement on OSHA’s vaccine mandate for private employers with over 100 employees, the Court ruled that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had the statutory authority to impose a vaccination mandate on healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. Facilities in states that were not previously subject to injunctions (listed below) must demonstrate that their staff is fully vaccinated by February 28, 2022.

For those states where injunctions were lifted following the ...

Following an expedited hearing on January 7, 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for stay of enforcement of OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard that would have been imposed on employers of 100 or more employees.  This stay is, in effect, injunctive relief pending disposition of the numerous businesses, trade groups, and non-profit organizations’ consolidated petitions for review in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court disagreed with the Sixth Circuit’s prior opinion and determined that the applicants’ ...

On January 5, 2022, Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health modified its ongoing COVID-19 health order due to drastic increases in cases and resultant hospitalizations related to the Omicron and Delta variants. Among these modifications is an important new requirement which pertains to the wearing of masks by employees. 

Specifically, employers in Los Angeles County must now provide their employees who work indoors and in close contact with other workers or the public with a well-fitting medical-grade mask, surgical mask or higher-level respirator, such as an N95 ...

Businesses and attorneys alike have kept a close eye on the developments surrounding the challenge to California Assembly Bill 51 (now codified as Labor Code section 432.6). Most recently, in a 2-1 decision, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) did not preempt the new law which bars California employers from utilizing mandatory arbitration agreements or from requiring an employee to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.  One month after this decision came down, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States filed ...

Since being enacted in 2004, the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) has been a proverbial bogeyman for employers in California. Despite having only a one-year look-back period, PAGA claims commonly inflate plaintiff’s demands and judicial decisions to a punitive degree that decimates an employer’s incentive to maintain a business in California. This statute, among other factors, has served to motivate a mass exodus of businesses fleeing to other, more business-friendly states. While PAGA has withstood many challenges and attempted reforms over the years, there is ...

Enacted in 2004, California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. Although only 25% of the amount recovered can be retained by the aggrieved employees with 75% going to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, PAGA has become a tool commonly used by plaintiffs to attempt to inflate even minor claims beyond reasonable value.  Although the Legislature has made minor changes to the law over the years ...

For much of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers have been frustrated by the lack of notice regarding important mandates issues by different public health officials at all levels of state and local government. Senate Bill 336 is designed to make obtaining current information a little easier. 

With the enactment of SB 336, if either the State Department of Public Health or a local health officer issues an order or mandatory guidance related to COVID-19, the respective agency must do the following:

(1) Publish on their internet website the order or mandatory guidance and the date it takes ...

Since the turn of the century, the judicial and legislative branches in California have added barrier after barrier to employers who have consciously sought arbitration; an oft-stated “preferred” method of resolution. The most draconian of these barriers became effective on January 1, 2020, with the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.97 et seq.  These statutes provide that if an employer fails to timely pay the fees for the arbitration, the employee would be entitled to either withdraw the claim from the arbitration and proceed in court or otherwise compel arbitration ...

COVID-19 has had a unique and continued impact on health and safety requirements in the workplace.  As a result, laws are being revised to catch up to the current work climate. Assembly Bill 654, which amends California Labor Code sections 6325 and 6409.6, is one such law. The amendments to these two statutes which initially established California’s COVID-19 notice and reporting requirements went into effect on October 5, 2021 and the statutes themselves shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2023.

What Does AB 654 Do?

Amendment to Labor Code § 6325

As a minor amendment to this ...

“It is the intent of the Legislature to afford all Californians, regardless of whether they have disabilities, with protections to ensure equal pay and equal treatment in the workplace.” These are the closing words of the preface to Senate Bill 639; a noble goal. However, the good intentions paving the way for this new law – equalizing the monetary playing field for employees with disabilities – may result in more harm than good for some of those very workers.

Before SB 639 was passed, employers could apply to the Industrial Welfare Commission for a special license, renewable ...

In 2013 the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1386, which amended Labor Code section 98.2, giving the Labor Commissioner additional means to collect wages and penalties on behalf of workers. Labor Code section 98.2 was modified so that any amount due under a final order by the Labor Commissioner permits the Labor Commissioner to record a Certificate of Lien against the employer’s real property.

Fast forward to September 2021 and the passage of Senate Bill 572.  This bill adds section 90.8 to the Labor Code, which becomes effective January 1, 2022.  This statute will allow ...

In a year of tough decisions for California employers, the Ninth Circuit just issued another mixed bag of legal decisions to navigate, this time regarding the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements.

CA Labor Code § 432.6 and Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Bonta

In October, 2019, California passed Assembly Bill 51, which became codified as Labor Code § 432.6, effective January 1, 2020. This law provided that employers could not require employees to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. In addition, it created civil and criminal ...

On September 9, 2021, President Biden signed two Executive Orders imposing sweeping new vaccine mandates on federal workers and contractors. This new mandate represents a shift in the White House’s policy on vaccinations, which had previously offered an alternative to those who wish to remain unvaccinated by allowing those individuals to wear masks while on federal property as long as they submitted to regular screening for COVID-19.

All federal employees, contractors and subcontractors employed by the federal government shall be required to provide proof of vaccination ...

Since 2019, California employers have relied on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, 40 Cal.App.5th 1239, for the proposition that only hourly wages would be used to calculate “premium pay” for meal or rest breaks under Labor Code section 226.7. In a serious blow to California employers, the California Supreme Court has reversed this ruling and held that non-discretionary bonus payments and commissions must be included in calculating these premium payments in the same manner as calculating for overtime pay. Adding insult to injury, the Court has held that its ruling will ...

As technology has advanced, employers routinely rely on electronic timekeeping software to ensure accurate record keeping. Such software often includes a setting to round employees’ time (typically to the nearest quarter hour) and is implemented as a result of either deliberate company policy or through inadvertent default. Regardless, employers should review these policies and settings following the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC.

In Donohue, the Court unequivocally held employers may no longer round an employee’s in and ...