California’s busy legislative year has come to an end, with Governor Gavin Newsom signing several new laws that will impact Golden State employers. Here, we summarize the laws expected to have the greatest impact on California employers in 2025. Unless otherwise noted below, these new laws take effect January 1, 2025.… Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (S265223, July 29, 2024) clarified the circumstances under which a single racial slur by a coworker can lead to employer liability and further expounded on the type of conduct that can constitute an adverse employment action giving rise to a claim of retaliation. … Continue Reading
A recent California Court of Appeal opinion, Shah v. Skillz Inc., (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 285, addressed two important questions relating to the valuation of stock options that have been the subject of litigation for many years: Are stock options wages? How are damages measured in a claim for breach of a stock option agreement? Although … Continue Reading
Your General Counsel receives a “cease and desist” letter from a competitor, alleging that the company’s new hire from that competitor has taken trade secrets and accusing the company of misappropriation. Your company has no need for those trade secrets and wants to compete fairly. What steps can be taken to forestall litigation? A recent … Continue Reading
On October 14, 2023, California’s active legislative year came to an end, leaving numerous employment law updates in its wake. This year, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed novel laws that create new rights for employees (and requirements for employers) while also amending some current laws, thereby changing existing employer obligations. Here, we summarize the laws … Continue Reading
On October 4, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 616 into law, which expands California’s mandatory paid sick leave from three days (or twenty-four hours) to five days (or forty hours). The increased paid sick leave requirements take effect on January 1, 2024. Background In 2014, California enacted the Healthy Workplaces, … Continue Reading
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down the California Legislature’s latest attempt in a prolonged effort to limit employers’ ability to make arbitration of all disputes a condition of employment. In an opinion issued on February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the law, Assembly Bill 51, is preempted by … Continue Reading
Just in time for the new year, California employers finally received some clarity about their obligations under California’s new pay transparency law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023. As discussed in more detail here, SB 1162 not only expands pay data reporting requirements for California employers with 100 or more employees, but the … Continue Reading
Virtually every employer in California has repeated the mantra of “no off-the-clock work” to its employees. But what about those minutes that are “on-the-clock” but remain unpaid because of rounding practices? Since 2012, when the California appellate court decided See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012), employers have presumed … Continue Reading
You’ve just been informed that an employee who apparently contracted COVID-19 from an exposure in your workplace brought the virus home, and now his spouse, who is in a high-risk category, has contracted the virus and is in the hospital. Do you as the employer face potential liability for the spouse’s illness? More than two … Continue Reading
On February 19, 2022, California employers with more than 25 employees must begin complying with California’s latest paid sick leave legislation (Senate Bill 114 to be codified as Cal. Labor Code § 248.6) and provide supplemental paid sick leave to covered employees who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 related reasons. While … Continue Reading
The California Legislature increased the complexity of employment law in the Golden State by enacting several employment laws that will soon take effect. Below we summarize key aspects of the more significant new legislation. Intentional Failure to Pay Wages May Constitute the Felony of “Grand Theft” (Assembly Bill 1003) Under current law, employers who wrongfully … Continue Reading
In October 2019, California enacted a new law, AB 51, that on its face prohibits mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts. As expected, the law was immediately challenged in federal court. In the latest installment of the law’s journey through the courts, a split Ninth Circuit panel vacated a 2020 preliminary injunction that had forestalled … Continue Reading
Less than a week after adopting a controversial proposal that would have required vaccinated employees to wear masks any time they were in a room with an unvaccinated person, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to withdraw the proposal. The Board plans to consider a new proposal at its next regular meeting … Continue Reading
On June 3, 2021, California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) took the first step towards adopting revised regulations relating to COVID-19 in the workplace. These revisions include updates to requirements for face coverings, physical distancing, and other preventive measures for both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers. The rules will apply in almost every workplace … Continue Reading
The range of employers who may be liable for the misclassification of workers just got bigger. On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court decided that the decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) applies retroactively to all non-final cases that predate the April 2018 Dynamex decision. Dynamex … Continue Reading
In part 1 of an upcoming series of posts on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), members of our Data Privacy & Cybersecurity and Labor & Employment practices discusses the limited moratorium on employee/worker data, the scope of the exemption under the moratorium and what employers need to do now. The full post is available … Continue Reading
Most companies doing business in California are aware of California’s long-standing public policy in favor of employee mobility over an employer’s ability to impose a provision prohibiting an employee from going to work for a competitor post-termination, which is embedded in California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. Particularly where the employer is headquartered outside … Continue Reading
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to a California employee’s class action wage claims. This ruling will have widespread impact, particularly on those employers with large numbers of non-exempt employees such as retailers and food service providers, as … Continue Reading
Your company did the right thing: One of your employees reported a violation of your company’s sexual harassment policy, HR did an investigation and found the report credible, and the alleged harasser’s employment was terminated. The employee is gone, but what do you do if the terminated employee’s potential new employer calls for a reference … Continue Reading
Adding to an existing split among the federal appeals courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on March 8, 2017 that employees who make internal reports about suspected violations of the federal securities laws and other anti-fraud statutes are covered by the “whistleblower” protections of the Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank), even if … Continue Reading
Tis the season for political debates. If it hasn’t happened to you yet, it soon will. You’ll go into the break room at work and a group of people will be arguing in increasingly heated tones: should it be Hillary or Bernie? Trump or Cruz? Is Bernie too old? Hillary not “man enough”? What about … Continue Reading
Stress can be a common workplace complaint, and such complaints are often attributed to managers—perhaps unsurprisingly given the managerial role of meeting performance goals. A recent case found that such narrow and particularized stress is not a disability recognized under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Aside from the reason for the plaintiff’s stress, … Continue Reading