Voters in California rejected Proposition 32, which would have increased the minimum wage to $18 for all employers by 2026. Under the proposition, the minimum wage increases depended on the size of the employer. Specifically, employers with 26 or more would have had to pay $17 hourly for the remainder of 2024 and $18 hourly beginning on January 1, 2025. Employers with 25 or fewer employees would have had pay $17 hourly beginning January 1, 2025, and $18 hourly beginning January 1, 2026. Moreover, the minimum wage would have continued to adjust annually for inflation.

While the votes on ballot measures will not be formally certified until December 6th, it seems the race is over with voters extinguishing the Proposition by a close margin—  approximately 49.3% of California voters supporting an increase to the minimum wage and 50% of California voters rejecting Proposition 32.

Despite Proposition 32’s failure, California’s minimum wage will still increase on January 1, 2025 to $16.50. In addition, the minimum wage will increase on January 1, 2025, for several municipalities. Below, is a list of some of the local minimum wages increasing at the start of the year.  Notably, there are many local municipalities as indicated below that already require minimum wages to increase beyond $18 after January 2025.  Employers must continue to monitor the minimum wages at the local and state level.   

LocaleNew Rate
Belmont$18.30
Burlingame$17.43
Cupertino$17.75
Daly City$17.07
East Palo Alto$17.45
El Cerrito$18.34
Foster City$17.40
Half Moon Bay$17.47
Hayward$17.36 for 26 or more employees
$16.50 for 25 or fewer employees
Los Altos$18.20
Menlo Park$17.10
Mountain View$19.20
Novato$17.27 for 100 or more employees
$17.00 for 26-99 employees
$16.50 for 25 or fewer employees [state minimum]
Oakland$16.89
Palo Alto$18.20
Petaluma$17.97
Redwood$18.20
San Carlos$17.32
Santa Clara$18.20
San Diego$17.25
South San Francisco$17.70
San Jose$17.95
San Mateo$17.95
San Mateo County (unincorporated areas)$17.46
Sonoma$18.02 for 26 or more employees
$16.96 for 25 or fewer employees
Sunnyvale$19.00
West Hollywood$19.65

If you have questions about California minimum wage or related issues, please reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

For an employee to be exempt from overtime under California law, their job must fall into a specific exempt category.

The most common exemptions are for executive, administrative, and professional roles. Employees in these capacities generally qualify if their work meets detailed requirements and they earn at least twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment (40 hours).

For certain exempt categories, however, the Department of Industrial Relations sets increases based on changes to the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI). For example, under the Labor Code, certain computer software employees and licensed physicians and surgeons must be paid a statutorily specified rate based on the CPI in order to be deemed exempt from overtime regulations.

According to section 515.5, employees working in the computer software field who satisfy specific conditions will be exempt from overtime regulations. This exemption covers individuals whose primary duties involve intellectually or creatively focused work that necessitates discretion and independent judgment. These employees must also possess a high level of skill and engage in tasks such as programming, systems analysis, and software design.

Effective January 1, 2025, the minimum hourly rate for computer software employees to meet this exemption will be $56.97, with a minimum monthly salary of $9,888.13 (annually $118,657.43).

Similarly, under Labor Code section 515.6, certain licensed physicians and surgeons must be paid a minimum hourly rate. Effective January 1, 2025, that hourly rate is $103.75 to meet the exemption.

If you have questions about overtime exemption requirements or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The California Civil Rights Council has been working on proposed regulation revisions to include automated decision-making in the requirements under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Council met on October 17, 2024, for public comment on the most recent version of the regulations and voted to extend the comment period to 30 days, though typically the period is only 15 days.
Here are some of the highlights of the proposed regulations:

 Definitions

  1. An automated decision system (ADS) is defined as a “computational process that screens, evaluates, categorizes, recommends, or otherwise makes a decision or facilitates human decision-making that impacts applicants or employees.” the definition excludes word processing software, spreadsheet software, and map navigation systems.
  2. Adverse impact (or disparate impact) includes the use of a facially neutral practice that may create a substantial disparity in the rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that work to the disadvantage of a group of individuals on a basis protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
  3. “Proxy” means a technically neutral characteristic or category correlated with a basis protected by FEHA.
  4. The regulations add examinations or inquiries administered in whole or part of an ADS as being included under the definition of medical or psychological examination.

Revisions to Existing Regulations

Under the proposed regulations it is unlawful for an employer to use an ADS or selection criteria that harms an applicant or employee on a basis protected under FEHA.

The regulations propose that ADS that measures an applicant’s skill, dexterity, reaction time, and/or other abilities or characteristics may require employers to provide accommodations as they would in other situations.  The same would be the case for ADS used to measure reactions or similar during interviews.

 The regulations add ADS to the list of methods for searching for criminal background history that are prohibited before a conditional offer of employment.

Recordkeeping

Subject to the current requirements under FEHA regulations to preserve personal and other employment records received by an employer, employers must include the following:

  1. All applications
  2. Personnel records
  3. Membership records
  4. Employment referral records
  5. Selection criteria
  6. Automated decision system data
  7. Other records related to a policy practice or decision affecting an applicant or employee

For those interested in submitting comments about the proposed regulations, they can be submitted until November 18, 2024, and addressed to:

Civil Rights Department
c/o Rachael Langston, Assistant Chief Counsel
555 12th Street – Suite 2050
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (916) 478-7251

Comments can also be submitted via email to: council@calcivilrights.ca.gov. The Council has indicated a preference for submissions via email.

If you have questions on the use of automated decision-making or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) recently published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)  on the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), providing an overview of the complicated law and the recent amendments.

The FAQ covers PAGA basics and provides guidance to employers on the new procedures introduced by the recent amendments.

Covered Employers

The FAQ specifies only private employers are subject to PAGA lawsuits. This was also discussed in the California Supreme Court decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System.

PAGA Recovery

The FAQ reviews what is recoverable under PAGA. Under PAGA, a plaintiff seeks penalties for alleged labor code violations, with the amount depending on the type of violation. The penalties fund enforcement of labor laws and education for employers and employees. For notices filed before June 19, 2024, 75% of the penalties go to the State of California and 25% to the aggrieved employees. For notices filed on or after this date, the allocation changes to 65% for the state and 35% for employees.

Additionally, courts may order employers to cease unlawful practices.

If employers took reasonable steps to comply with the law before receiving a notice, penalties can be reduced to 15% or 30% if they comply within 60 days, with certain exceptions.

Cure Process

The FAQ addresses the cure processes for employers. The recent amendments allow employers to fix certain violations during the notice period, avoiding lawsuits and penalties. Starting June 19, 2024, the list of curable violations includes minimum wage, overtime, meal breaks, expense reimbursement, and wage statement requirements. Cure proposals, treated as confidential, must be submitted online via the PAGA Filing Portal.

Before October 1, 2024, employers were required notify employees and the LWDA within 33 days of a PAGA notice. From October 1, 2024, all employers can cure wage statement violations, while those with fewer than 100 workers can propose cures for other issues. The LWDA will review proposed cures and may hold conferences. If not resolved, employees can file PAGA lawsuits. Appeals can be made to the Superior Court.

Effective Cure

The FAQ details what is required under the statute for a cure, including correcting the alleged violation and making the aggrieved employee whole. The FAQ lists what must be included for unpaid wages and wage statement cures.

Explanation of Early Evaluation Conference

The FAQ also discusses the new early evaluation conference from the recent amendments. Employers with at least 100 employees can request this conference and a stay of court proceedings when served with a summons and complaint. Overseen by a neutral evaluator, this process aims to resolve disputes early in court, separate from the LWDA’s administrative cure process.

Though not detailed in the FAQ, employers with less than 100 employees can also make use of the stay and early evaluation conference, but must first submit to the LWDA for consideration of proposed cure plans and related information.

If you have questions about PAGA or related issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.  Jackson Lewis has seven offices in California to assist employers.

At the end of June, the Governor paused the California health care worker minimum wage due to budget concerns. The bill was delayed until certain state budget circumstances occurred, which happened on October 1. Now the minimum wage for health care workers will take effect October 16, 2024.

To assist with the implementation of the new minimum wage, the Labor Commissioner has published a Frequently Asked Questions page on the law.

The FAQ includes explanations of the following:

  • Who is covered by the law?
  • The schedule for increases based on the size and type of facility
  • Special rules for public covered health care facilities
  • Notices to employees

The FAQ also links to the required Health Care Minimum Wage Supplement to the minimum wage order.

Employers also should look beyond the new law to derivative issues like wage compression, employee morale, and management training regarding how to communicate complex compensation issues.

If you have questions about the health care worker minimum wage or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

San Diego County recently passed its own Fair Chance Ordinance which takes effect on October 10, 2024. The ordinance applies to businesses operating in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Similar to the Los Angeles County ordinance, it requires employers to assess the risk presented by an applicant’s criminal history in relation to the position sought.

Covered Employers

The ordinance covers employers with five or more employees, doing business in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County.

Covered Employees

The law applies to employees performing at least two hours of work on average each week within the unincorporated areas of the County.

The ordinance specifies that it includes remote work from a location within the unincorporated areas of the County.

Prohibitions Under Ordinance

Under the ordinance covered employers are prohibited from:

  • Declaring in a job posting or similar listing any limitation due to a conviction or arrest unless required by law.
  • Include in an application or similar document prior to a conditional offer of employment, any question that directly or indirectly asks about the individual’s criminal history.
  • Taking an adverse action against an applicant based on a criminal history information until after a conditional offer of employment is made.
  • Inquire or consider certain items such as convictions that have been sealed, diversion programs, or arrests not followed by conviction.

Employer Obligations

Under the ordinance covered employers who intend to take adverse action in response to an applicant’s criminal history shall make a written individualized assessment of whether the criminal history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job. If an employer decides to take adverse action based on an applicant’s criminal history, they must provide the applicant with a written notice, a copy of the background check report, and an opportunity for the applicant to respond.

Employers must retain records related to all employment applications and written assessments for one year following receipt.

If you have questions about San Diego’s Fair Chance Ordinance or related issues contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The deluge of candidate introduction postcards and special interest group mailers urging us to vote “Yes!” or “No!” on particular issues that flood our mailboxes daily reminds us that election season is just around the corner.To ensure that all Californians are able to exercise their right to vote, California law requires employers to provide employees with up to two hours of paid time off to vote if they do not have time to do so during non-work hours. Employers may require time off to be taken only at the beginning or end of the employee’s shift.

One of the key aspects of this law is the requirement for employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights to voting leave. This notice must be displayed at least 10 days before every statewide election in conspicuous locations such as in break rooms, near time clocks, or on bulletin boards.

The notice must clearly state the following:

  • Employees are entitled to take up to two hours of paid time off to vote.
  • The time off must be taken at the beginning or end of the work shift, whichever allows the most time for voting and the least time off from work unless otherwise mutually agreed upon.
  • Employees must give their employer at least two working days’ notice if they need to take time off to vote.

The State Attorney General’s website has template notices available.

If you have questions about voting leave or related issues, do not hesitate to contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Senate Bill 1137: California Amends Law to Clarify Protection for Combinations of Protected Characteristics

Assembly Bill 2499: California Amends Jury, Court, and Victim Time Off Provisions

Assembly Bill 2123: Changes in Managing Employee Leave under Paid Family Leave

Senate Bill 1100: New California Law Restricts Driver’s License Requirements in Job Postings

Senate Bill 1350: Your Hearth is Cal/OSHA’s New Home: The Agency’s Jurisdiction Expands to Include Household Domestic Services

Senate Bill 399: Governor Newsom Signs Law To Curtail Employer Mandatory Meetings With Employees During Union Organizing

Senate Bill 988: Understanding the Freelance Worker Protection Act – What Employers Need to Know

Assembly Bill 2975: California Passes Amendments to Healthcare Workplace Violence Prevention Requirements

Assembly Bill 1034: Construction Industry PAGA Exemption Extended Until 2038

Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1034, which extends the exemption from the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for certain employees in the construction industry until January 1, 2038.

This extension applies to employees in the construction industry who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that meets specific conditions including:

  • Expressly provides for wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees
  • Provides premium wage rates for all overtime worked
  • The employee receives a regular hourly pay rate of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.

To qualify, the CBA must prohibit all of the violations of the labor code that are redressable pursuant to PAGA and provide for a grievance and binding arbitration process to redress those violations.  The CBA must also expressly waive  PAGA’s requirements in clear and unambiguous terms and authorize the arbitrator to award any and all remedies available under the California Labor Code, with the exception of penalties that would otherwise be awardable to the Labor Workforce Development Agency.

If you have questions about AB 1034, or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Hospitals must prepare now to comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 2975, which requires certain hospitals to implement a weapons screening policy and use specified weapons detection devices, other than handheld metal detector wands.

For years, California has led the nation in workplace violence prevention laws, beginning with workplace violence prevention standards for hospitals. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) adopted standards that mandated that hospitals prevent weapons from entering the facility by the use of safeguards, such as weapons detection devices, among other options.

Under AB 2975, by March 1, 2027, Cal/OSHA must adopt standards requiring hospitals to use automatic “security mechanisms, devices, or technology designed to screen and identify instruments capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury” at three specific locations: the main public entrance, the entrance to the emergency department and at the entrance to labor and delivery if it is separate. This requirement will not apply to the ambulance entrance. The Standards Board will define a list of the security mechanisms, devices, or technologies that meet these requirements.

Handheld metal detector wands may continue to be used, but they must be used in connection with other automatic detection devices. Small and rural hospitals, entrances with space limitations, and hospitals providing extended care to patients with complex needs may continue to use only handheld detectors.

Adding additional costs, hospitals must also assign personnel, other than healthcare providers, to monitor and operate the devices. These personnel must receive at least 8 hours of training on the detectors, hospital policy if a weapon is detected, de-escalation, and implicit bias. Hospitals are required to post notices about weapons detection screening in conspicuous locations near public entrances where these devices are used.

If you have questions about AB 2975 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.