California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) continues to advance toward the March 31, 2021 pay data collection deadline.  When SB 973 was passed in September, DFEH had six months to develop and implement a data collection system that could accomplish the task.  It is delivering.  DFEH issued its first guidance on November

As campaign season heats up and political protests continue on top of an already stressed workforce, most employers seek to maintain a harmonious work environment. While perhaps tempting to regulate employee behavior to keep politics out of the workplace, employers should tread carefully.

Under California’s discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected classification.  On

The Ninth Circuit recognized that plaintiff’s argument was novel but was thwarted by the statute itself.  Plaintiff below, argued on behalf of a class, that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by presenting the FCRA disclosure at the same time the company presented other separate documents.  The District Court granted summary judgment

February is the month where romance blossoms – which means it is a great time for employers to review their policies regarding employee fraternization and intracompany relationships.

How does an employer go about regulating romantic relationships between employees? It can be tricky. When creating workplace policies, employers should keep Labor Code section 96(k) in mind.

On the eve of the Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”) effective date, Judge Roger Benitez granted the California Trucking Association’s (“Association”) request for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent enforcement of the law which the Association argued requires truckers to be classified as employees instead of independent contractors.

On January 13th, Judge Benitez

As 2019 comes to a close, here is a look ahead to some of the legislation going into effect on January 1, 2020, that affects employers in California.

Independent Contractors

Assembly Bill 5 codifies and clarifies the California Supreme Court’s 2018 Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal.

With the future of the EEOC’s pay data collection efforts unclear, California’s effort to legislate its own race- and sex-based pay data reporting requirements likewise has stalled, for now.

Since July, California’s Senate Bill 171 (requiring private employers with at least 100 employees to submit an annual report of employee pay data broken down by

The recent focus on the EEOC’s new Component 2 to its EEO-1 Report has been undeniable. It requires employers report on the race, ethnicity, sex, job type, pay, and hours worked data of its employees.

OMB approved this data collection during the Obama Administration. Then, under President Donald Trump, the OMB reversed course, staying the

With political campaigns well underway, the protection of “free speech” and concerns that regular political discourse could create potential liability are mounting.  Notably, within the last year, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission expanded upon a number of definitions and specific employment practices prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Not listed among