Insight & Commentary on California Workplace Law Issues & Developments
On September 22, 2021, California’s Governor signed Assembly Bill 701 (AB 701) which regulates the use of quotas at warehouse distribution centers in California. The new law applies to large employers who meet industry definitions for General Warehousing and Storage, Merchant Wholesalers (Durable and Non-Durable Goods), and Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses.
AB 701 requires…
Is the California Supreme Court about to make it more difficult to dispose of whistleblower retaliation claims? That may well be the case. The Supreme Court has agreed to answer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ question about California law and unlawful retaliation against an employee in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.…
On September 30, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1947, which extends the period to file a discrimination or retaliation complaint to one year with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) or better known as the Labor Commissioner. Before the passage of this legislation, employees alleging they had been discharged or otherwise…
As California proceeds through the stages of reopening businesses in the wake of the COVID19 pandemic, the California state legislature is considering various bills to lighten the load for employers as they attempt to recover from the various degrees of business closures. One such bill is Assembly Bill 2457. Though the bill was introduced in…
If you have ever received a pre-litigation records request, then you may already know that such a request tends to be a harbinger of a lawsuit on the horizon. Plaintiff’s lawyers regularly use Labor Code provisions to obtain pay and personnel records, before a lawsuit has been filed. While employees (or their representative) are undoubtedly…
California has enacted new legislation aimed at clarifying its law banning an employer from inquiring about a job applicant’s salary history information.
Assembly Bill 168 (codified as Labor Code Section 432.3) prohibits employers from seeking salary history of applicants for employment. Designed to eradicate the wage gap, AB 168 also requires employers to provide applicants…
The California Supreme Court recently heard the case of Troester v. Starbucks Corporation which could significantly increase employers’ exposure to claims by hourly paid employees for small pre-shift and post-shift tasks that are currently treated as insignificant and not compensable.
The de minimis doctrine, an established defense under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), permits…
The California Supreme Court, in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, held that for purposes of claims under the California Wage Orders “engage, suffer or permit to work” determines employee status, thus requiring a defendant who disputes that a worker is an employee (rather than an independent contractor) to prove (A) the worker is free…
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has approved an Ordinance requiring hotel and motel operators in Sacramento County to provide employees with a panic button or notification device that can be used to call for help when an employee reasonably believes sexual harassment activity is occurring in the employee’s presence. The panic button is designed…
Several significant employment law bills relating to sexual harassment are pending before the California legislature which could significantly affect employer practices.
SB-1343 seeks to amend current sexual harassment prevention training for employers. Under current law, employers with 50 or more employees must provide sexual harassment training to supervisors within six months of the supervisor’s assumption…
