As of February 3, 2025, most of Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Standards have officially come to an end. This marks a significant shift for California employers who have been navigating these regulations and their predecessor emergency temporary standards for the past four years.  

Despite the expiration of most obligations under this standard, employers are required to comply with certain recordkeeping requirements under Title 8, Subsection 3205(j) until February 3, 2026.  As a practical matter, what does this require?  There is some ambiguity in how the regulation is drafted. 

To set the stage: While the Non-Emergency Standards were in effect, employers were required to keep detailed records of all COVID-19 cases, including the employee’s name, contact information, occupation, workplace location, last day at the workplace, and the date of the positive COVID-19 test or diagnosis. 

Going forward, the requirement that employers comply with recordkeeping requirements through February 3, 2026, could be interpreted in either of two ways:

First, the simplest reading is:

  • With respect to COVID-19 cases that occurred up to February 3, 2025, employers must maintain these detailed records for two years or until February 3, 2026, whichever date comes first.

Alternatively, a more conservative reading of the regulation leads to the following:

  • Employers must continue to record and track COVID-19 cases that occur through February 3, 2026.  Records of COVID-19 cases must be kept for two years.  For example, records of a COVID-19 case in January 2026 would need to be maintained through January 2028.

The second interpretation raises additional questions.  For instance, why would employers need to record and track COVID-19 cases when all of the related requirements from the Non-Emergency Regulations have expired (such as notifying employees, providing testing, etc.)? 

Absent further guidance on this point, the answer is unclear.  Cal/OSHA could be expecting employers to keep track of COVID-19 trends and respond to safety concerns through California’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) requirement.

To that point, even though the specific COVID-19 prevention regulations have ended, employers must still adhere to general workplace safety requirements:

  • Employers are required to maintain a safe and healthful workplace as mandated by Labor Code section 6400.
  • Employers must continue to implement and maintain an effective IIPP as required by Title 8, California Code of Regulations, sections 1509 (Construction) and 3203 (General Industry).
  • If COVID-19 is identified as a workplace hazard, employers must evaluate and correct any unsafe conditions, work practices, or procedures associated with it.

While the end of Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Standards signifies a return to pre-pandemic regulatory conditions, employers must remain vigilant in maintaining workplace safety and complying with ongoing recordkeeping requirements.

If you have questions about the end of COVID-19 Standards or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California’s pay data reporting requirements were established under Senate Bill (SB) 973, signed into law in 2020. The law mandates that private employers with 100 or more employees, including those hired through labor contractors, must annually report pay and demographic data to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD).

In 2022, Senate Bill (SB) 1162 expanded these requirements to include workers hired through labor contractors.

Under California’s law, employers must submit their pay data reports annually, with the deadline for the 2025 reporting year set for May 14, 2025. The report must include:

  • Employee demographic information: race, ethnicity, and sex.
  • Pay data: categorized by job category and pay band.
  • Hours worked: for each employee within the reporting year.

Compliance with these reporting requirements is not only a legal obligation but also a step toward promoting fair pay practices. By analyzing and reporting pay data, employers can identify and address potential pay disparities, ensuring equal pay for equal work.

The Civil Rights Department (CRD)’s pay data reporting portal is now open for submitting 2024 reporting. The CRD has published a handbook for employers that provides instructions for submitting and certifying annual reports, in addition to the Frequently Asked Questions page.

The CRD also cautions that Excel templates and CSV examples have been updated so employers should not use prior years’ versions as they will be rejected.

If employers have questions about California’s pay data reporting contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

In an era where consumers are increasingly concerned about ethical sourcing and labor practices, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (CTSCA) stands as a significant piece of legislation.

Enacted in 2010, the CTSCA aims to combat human trafficking and slavery in global supply chains, promoting greater transparency and accountability among businesses operating in California.

The CTSCA requires large retailers and manufacturers doing business in California to disclose their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chains. Specifically, the Act applies to companies with annual worldwide gross receipts exceeding $100 million.

These businesses must provide detailed information on their websites about their supply chain practices, including:

  1. Verification: The extent to which the company engages in the verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and slavery.
  2. Audits: Whether the company conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains.
  3. Certification: The requirement for direct suppliers to certify that materials incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business.
  4. Internal Accountability: The maintenance of internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding slavery and trafficking.
  5. Training: Describe the provided training on human trafficking and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chains of products.

To assist with compliance, the state has published a Resource Guide and Frequently Asked Questions.

To ensure compliance employers should first, undertake thorough verification processes to identify and address any risks related to human trafficking and slavery in their supply chains. Second, conduct regular audits of suppliers to ensure adherence to company standards. Third, require direct suppliers to certify the legality of their practices concerning human trafficking and slavery. Fourth, establish and maintain robust internal accountability standards for employees and contractors. Lastly, provide comprehensive staff training, focusing on identifying and mitigating risks of human trafficking and slavery in supply chains. By implementing these action items, businesses can not only comply with the CTSCA but also contribute to the global fight against human trafficking and slavery.

This is not the only state or federal law that requires such disclosures. California passed a law last year to require website disclosures when employers conduct social compliance audits. And there are numerous others from the California Consumer Privacy Law to HIPAA, that businesses need to be aware of.

If you have questions about compliance with the CTSCA or related issues contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (California Assembly Bill 241 and Senate Bill 1015), enacted in 2013, is a California law that grants overtime pay rights to personal attendants who were not previously entitled to overtime pay under California law. Personal attendants covered by this law are entitled to overtime pay at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of nine hours in a day or 45 hours in a week.

Which Employers Are Covered?

The Domestic Worker Bill of Rights defines a “domestic work employer” as any person, including corporate officers and executives, who directly or through an agent (such as temp services or staffing agencies) employs or controls the wages, hours, and working conditions of domestic workers. However, certain employers are excluded from this law. Excluded employers include domestic worker registry or referral agencies that satisfy specific requirements under the Civil Code and Unemployment Insurance Code.

Who is Considered a Domestic Worker?

Under the law, a domestic worker is defined as someone who provides services related to the care of people in the home or maintains private households or their premises. This includes nannies, childcare providers, caregivers, personal attendants, housekeepers, cooks, and other household workers.

Who is a Personal Attendant?

A personal attendant is someone employed by a private household or any third-party employer recognized in the healthcare industry to work in a private household. The duties of a personal attendant include supervising, feeding, and dressing a child or person who needs assistance due to advanced age, physical disability, or mental deficiency. If a domestic worker spends more than 20 percent of their time performing work other than supervising, feeding, and dressing a child or person who needs supervision, they are not considered a personal attendant.

Overtime Protections for Personal Attendants

Personal attendants are entitled to overtime pay for any hours worked over nine hours per day or over 45 hours per week. However, there are certain exclusions. For example, family members (parents, grandparents, spouses, siblings, or children of the employer), individuals under the age of 18 employed as babysitters, and casual babysitters – those who babysit on an irregular or intermittent basis – are not covered by this law.

If you have any questions about the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights or any other employment laws, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

In light of the ongoing and devastating fires in Los Angeles County, Cal/OSHA released new guidance to ensure the safety and health of workers involved in fire damage cleanup.

Of note, Cal/OSHA’s standards may apply to some household domestic service workers. Historically, domestic service workers have not been subject to Cal/OSHA’s standards while cooking, cleaning, and providing childcare for a family. Cal/OSHA reminded employers that household domestic service workers are governed by Cal/OSHA’s standard if the workers are engaged in fire cleanup work, such as removing ash and debris and cleaning fire-damaged structures. As such, it is important for those employers who have employees performing post-fire cleaning to take note of the Cal/OSHA guidance.

As a reminder and unrelated to this recent guidance, effective July 1, 2025, Cal/OSHA will gain control over workplace safety for some household domestic services.

Key Points to Note:

  1. Employers are required to identify and evaluate potential hazards in fire-damaged areas. This includes assessing risks such as unstable structures, hazardous materials, and environmental dangers like ash and soot.
  2. Proper training and instruction must be provided to employees before they begin cleanup work. This training should cover the specific hazards they may encounter and the safety measures they need to take.
  3. Employers must ensure that workers have access to and use appropriate PPE. This includes NIOSH-certified respirators, gloves, eye protection, and other necessary gear to protect against inhalation of harmful substances and physical injuries.
  4. Cal/OSHA emphasizes the importance of adhering to existing health and safety standards. This includes regulations on heat illness prevention, confined space entry, and handling of hazardous materials.
  5. Employers must establish and communicate clear emergency procedures. This includes protocols for evacuations, first aid, and reporting unsafe conditions.

If you have questions about Cal/OSHA compliance for fire damage cleanup or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

In light of recent wildfires across Southern California, employers should make sure they are familiar with California’s wildfire smoke standard.  Sadly, harmful air quality from wildfire smoke can occur anywhere in the state on short notice, so it is vital that employers prepare early.

With some exceptions, the wildfire smoke standard applies to workplaces where the air quality index is 151 (Unhealthy) or higher and where it’s reasonably anticipated that employees may be exposed to wildfire smoke. 

Employers can monitor the AQI using the following websites:

In addition to applying to outdoor settings, the standard also applies to indoor locations where the air is not filtered or if doors and windows are kept open, such as warehouses, packing, manufacturing, and distribution facilities.

Under the wildfire smoke standard, employers must protect employees from smoke by:

  • Monitoring the local air quality index;
  • Ensuring open communication with employees;
  • Training employees on the information contained in Appendix B to Section 5141.1;
  • Modifying the workplace, if possible, to reduce exposure to wildfire smoke; and
  • Providing proper respiratory protection, like N95 respirators, for voluntary use when work must be performed in a location with poor air quality.

Moreover, if the air quality index for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 exceeds 500 due to wildfire smoke, respirator use is mandatory. Employers must make sure employees are using respirators correctly in these situations.  If employers cannot move operations and do not have access to respiratory protection, then operations may need to be stopped until the air quality improves.

To assist employers, Cal/OSHA maintains a list of vendors who report available supplies of N95 disposable respirators, which is updated regularly.

Employers should also review requirements pertaining to compensation and wildfires. The California Labor Commissioner’s Office has FAQs pertaining to important employment issues that employers should consider when their employees or worksite are impacted by wildfires.

If you have questions about workplace requirements pertaining to wildfires or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

On January 1, 2025, Senate (SB) Bill 399, officially went into effect in California. California joined other states, including Illinois, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, and Oregon, in enacting statutes that prohibit “captive audience” meetings, similarly limiting employers’ ability to conduct mandatory meetings on religious or political matters, including a labor organization.

Several business groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 399 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of California, argues that the law infringes on employers’ rights to free speech and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs contend that SB 399 discriminates against employers’ viewpoints on political matters and restricts the content of their communications with employees. They argue that the law stifles employer speech and is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects employer free speech under Section 8(c).

The legal battle over SB 399 highlights the ongoing tension between protecting workers’ rights and preserving employers’ freedom of speech.

If plaintiffs are successful, SB 399 may be blocked from enforcement but employers will need to wait to see how the court views the case. While litigation is pending, California employers may need to consider whether it is in their organization’s best interest to make such meeting attendance voluntary or proceed in accordance with the NLRA.

Jackson Lewis will continue to track the legal challenge. If you have questions about SB 399 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2024 about issues such as the application of PAGA to public employees and the definition of “hours worked.”

Several cases are pending before the state’s high court. Here are the highlights and what the cases could mean for employers in the Golden State.

Brown v. City of Inglewood

Issue presented:  Are elected officials “employees” for purposes of whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b)?

Brown, the elected treasurer of Inglewood since 1987, sued the City and several members of the Inglewood City Council. Brown alleged that after she reported concerns about financial improprieties, the City and the individual defendants defamed and retaliated against her. She brought claims for defamation, violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (which prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting illegal activities), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

The defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to prevent lawsuits that are intended to silence free speech. The trial court granted the motion in part but denied it regarding the Section 1102.5 retaliation claim and the IIED claim based on retaliation.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision in part. The appellate court ruled that Brown, as an elected official, is not considered an “employee” under Section 1102.5, and therefore, her retaliation claim under this statute was not legally sufficient. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the inclusion of elected officials in the definition of “employee” in other statutes (e.g., the Workers’ Compensation Act) but not within the definition for purposes of Section 1102.5 reflected the legislature’s plain decision to deny them the protections of that section of the Labor Code.  Consequently, the court also struck down the retaliation-based IIED claim against the individual defendants. 

The California Supreme Court’s decision will be significant for public entities as it clarifies the scope of whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd

The issue presented: Should the calculation of enhanced workers’ compensation benefits for an employer’s serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553 be based on temporary disability payments available under the Labor Code?

Michael Ayala, a correctional officer, was severely injured in a preplanned attack by inmates in August 2002. Ayala filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging that his injury was caused by the serious and willful misconduct of his employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Under Labor Code section 4553, such allegations could increase the compensation recoverable by one-half if proven.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially found that CDCR had failed to act on credible threats of inmate violence, which were reported before the attack. This decision was based on the Board’s finding that CDCR took the facility off lockdown despite knowing about the planned attack.

However, the California Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB’s decision. The Court held that the compensation Ayala received while on industrial disability leave and enhanced industrial disability leave did not qualify as “compensation” under Section 4553 because while the Government Code did provide for industrial disability leave and enhanced industrial disability leave, their inclusion of “temporary disability” under the Government Code definition of “industrial disability” did not alter the Labor Code’s definition for the purposes of determining compensation under Section 4553. Therefore, the base compensation for calculating the increased award should have been what Ayala would have received on temporary disability, which is typically two-thirds of his salary.

The decision will be important for employers in evaluating the settlement of serious and willful claims, which typically are not covered by worker’s compensation insurance.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

The issue presented:  Where an arbitration agreement is fair in substance, is it nevertheless unenforceable for unconscionability where it is a one-page form with tiny, seemingly blurred print, largely unreadable, and presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?

Here, the trial court held the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that while the tiny font of the agreement created a problem of procedural unconscionability, the substance of the arbitration agreements was fair and there was therefore no reason to invalidate the agreements for unconscionability.

The result of this case will shape the future of employment arbitration agreement enforceability, which has been changing dramatically in recent years.

Iloff v. LaPaille

Issues Presented: For an employer to establish its “good faith” defense to liquidated damages, must it demonstrate that it took affirmative steps to ascertain whether its pay practices complied with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders? May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2?

In this case, the plaintiffs filed wage claims with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) against defendants Cynthia LaPaille and Bridgeville Properties, Inc. (BPI) for unpaid wages in violation of the Labor Code. The plaintiffs received a favorable order from the Labor Commissioner, and BPI appealed to the Superior Court. In the subsequent Superior Court action, the plaintiffs were represented by the Labor Commissioner’s office.

Following a de novo trial on the wage claims, the court found that plaintiffs were entitled to unpaid wages and certain penalties but rejected the plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claims under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the UCL). The court declined to award the plaintiffs liquidated damages or penalties for violations of sick leave notice requirements, and did not impose personal liability on BPI’s CEO, Cynthia LaPaille.

The issues here are the Court of Appeal’s holdings that liquidated damages were not appropriate for failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code section 1194.2(a), and that plaintiffs do not have private rights of action for sick leave penalties.

Section 1194.2(a) allows courts to reduce or eliminate liquidated damages where an employer can show that it acted in “good faith” with “reasonable grounds” for believing it did not violate the law. Here, because the plaintiffs initiated the idea of working in exchange for rent, rather than wages, as an independent contractor, and the unsettled status of the law on this subject at the time, the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the defendants acted in good faith.

Moreover, sick leave penalties require independent actions by the Labor Commissioner or Attorney General’s office, and no private right of action exists to enforce the requirements of the Healthy Workplaces, Health Families Act. Even though the plaintiffs were represented by the Labor Commissioner in their superior court action, this did not suffice to permit their pursuit of sick leave penalties.

Separately, and not at issue with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal held that LaPaille may be held personally liable due to her managerial role with BPI under Labor Code section 558.1(a), which expressly permits personal liability for individuals “acting on behalf of an employer.” It further held that the trial court had discretion as to whether equitable relief for unfair business practices would be in the interest of justice, even where Labor Code violations exist. Because the parties appeared to lack understanding as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to wages for the services they performed for BPI, the Court of Appeal found the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying equitable relief.

Zhang v. Superior Court

Issue Presented: If a party moves to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a forum-selection clause and seeks to stay related California litigation under Section 1281.4, can the opposing party preempt the court’s “competent jurisdiction” requiring a stay of the California litigation by merely invoking Labor Code section 925? Moreover, can a party to an arbitration agreement circumvent the arbitration agreement’s delegation of all issues to an arbitrator by invoking Labor Code section 925?

Plaintiff Zhang is a former Dentons law firm partner who worked in California. After Dentons removed him from the partnership for diverting money owed to the firm, they initiated arbitration in New York pursuant to a signed arbitration agreement contained within the partnership agreement entered into between Plaintiff and his former firm. Zhang then filed suit in California, arguing that he was an employee and that Labor Code section 925 preempted arbitration in New York. Section 925 contains a prohibition against requiring a California employee to adjudicate California claims elsewhere.  Dentons sought a stay under Section 1281.4. The trial court granted Denton’s motion for a stay. After the Court of Appeal denied Zhang’s petition for a writ and the Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeal to review, it denied Zhang’s petition on the merits, deciding (1) that the stay was properly granted because the partnership agreement delegated to the arbitrator all questions of arbitrability; (2) the New York court was a court of competent jurisdiction because Section 925 did not automatically strip another state’s courts of jurisdiction; and (3) giving effect to the delegation clause comported with the Federal Arbitration Act, because doing so protected the right to enforce negotiated arbitration agreements.

This case is crucial for employers because it may affect who can benefit from Labor Code section 925, and therefore preempt forum-selection clauses.

Jackson Lewis continues to track California case law affecting employers. If you have questions about any of the cases pending before the California Supreme Court or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Recently, the Los Angeles City Council approved a motion to amend the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) and the Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance (HWMO), which will impact airport and hospitality workers, respectively. On December 11, 2024, the City Council approved a draft ordinance and directed the City Attorney to prepare a formal draft ordinance for the City Council’s final approval. The ordinance will likely be finalized in early 2025.  

Currently, the LWO for airport employees is $19.28 per hour or 25.23 if health benefits are not provided and the HWMO is $20.32 per hour.

The draft ordinance proposes an annual increase of the hourly wage under the LWO and HWMO as follows

DateRate
July 1, 2025$22.50
July 1, 2026$25.00
July 1, 2027$27.50
July 1, 2028$30.00

The draft ordinance also provides for a health payment of $8.35 an hour commencing on July 1, 2025. This is an increase from the current $5.95 per hour under the LWO and would be a new benefit for most hotel workers.  The health care benefit for hotel workers would be applied as it is under the LWO. And then starting July 1, 2026, the health care benefit would be adjusted by the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare’s Large Group Aggregate Rates report.

Jackson Lewis will continue to track this and other local ordinances affecting California employers. If you have questions on the changes coming to the City of Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance and Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

On December 18, 2024, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency to streamline and expedite the state’s response to Avian influenza A (H5N1), commonly known as “Bird Flu.”

This may give many employers flashbacks to the COVID-19 Pandemic and shelter-in-place requirements.  Currently, it is not that type of emergency. However, there are some mandates that employers in affected industries should be aware of.

In response to the outbreak of Bird Flu, the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), through the Department of Industrial Relations, and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) are engaging in an outreach strategy to educate employers and workers about Bird Flu. This page provides comprehensive information on prevention and control measures to reduce the risk of exposure to Bird Flu and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements.

Moreover, the State of California will be distributing PPE to high-risk workers at dairy farms.

Cal/OSHA will also be responding to reports of worker illness and conducting programmed inspections in high-hazard industries, including the dairy industry.  While the declaration mainly identifies dairy farms as high hazard, Cal/OSHA has already published a page on Bird Flu, that identifies workers who have job-related contact with birds or dairy cows as at risk. This includes bird rehabilitation centers, animal sanctuaries, slaughterhouse workers, and lab workers who test samples for Bird Flu.

While employers in these types of industries should be cautious, the CDPH states the current risk is low and there is no known person-to-person spread of Bird Flu detected in California.

If you have questions about the State of Emergency for Bird Flu or related compliance issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.