Photo of Adam Y. Siegel

Adam Y. Siegel is a principal in the Los Angeles, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on employment litigation, as well as on advising employers regarding daily workplace issues.

Adam has litigated cases in both state and federal court. Adam’s litigation experience includes handling a wide range of employment-related issues including discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, whistleblower claims, and wage and hour claims. Adam has litigated numerous wage and hour class and multi-plaintiff actions and has trial experience. Adam has also conducted and prepared workplace Investigation Reports. He conducts training seminars and speaks on a multitude of employment law topics.

This week the California Legislature returned from its final month-long break of the current legislative session. While the future of several workplace-related bills will be decided in the coming weeks, perhaps none are more significant to California private sector employers than AB 1522.  If passed, AB 1522 creates the “Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act of 2014,” which requires employers to provide paid sick days for an employee who works for thirty (30) or more days in a calendar year.

Similar bills mandating paid sick leave were passed by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary in 2008, 2009, and 2011, but each was subsequently held in suspense in the Appropriations Committees. It is believed that AB 1522  has a greater chance of being passed as it is more limited than its predecessors insofar as it provides employees with a minimum of only 24 hours/three days of paid sick leave rather than the 72 hours/nine days there were provided under the previous three proposals.Continue Reading California Legislature to Decide Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Bill

Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued new Enforcement Guidance (“Guidance”) on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and related issues.  In its first update in over thirty (30) years, the Commission clarified how Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) interact to protect pregnant employees.  If you are an employer in California, you may be thinking, “Great. Another change in the law and now I am stuck with trying to figure out how these changes apply to my business. Now what do I need to do to make sure the policies and procedures in our handbook are up to date?”

The new guidelines prohibit employers from forcing pregnant workers to take leave and acknowledge that “employers may have to provide light duty for pregnant workers.” After childbirth, lactation is now covered as a pregnancy-related medical condition.

Also, it’s not just women who will benefit.  The guidelines say that when it comes to parental leave, “similarly situated” men and women must be treated on the same terms.

Here are some tips to consider when reviewing and updating your handbooks:Continue Reading It’s Time to Consider Updating Your Pregnancy Disability Leave Policies

Employers in the construction industry throughout California must prepare for an increase in the number of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) inspectors who will check employers’ fall protection safety systems.  The increase in inspections is a response to the events that occurred between May 18 and May 21, 2014, when four construction workers

On May 22, 2014, a California District Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action covering about 1,500 female employees of Daiichi Sankyo Inc. (“DSI”) who allege the drug company paid them less than their male peers, ruling that the plaintiffs had met the low evidentiary burden to move forward collectively.

In SARA WELLENS, et al.,

On May 15, 2014, the California Assembly passed a proposed amendment to California’s statute governing sexual harassment training.

Currently, the statute requires employers with 50 or more employees to ensure workplaces are free of sexual harassment by providing training to their supervisory employees at least once every two years.  Such training must include information regarding

On April 21, 2014, a California Appellate Court held that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable and an employer cannot compel arbitration when the employer failed to translate the entirety of an English-language employment agreement containing an arbitration agreement, confidentiality clause, and enforceability provision for its Spanish-speaking employees.

In Esteban H. Carmona et al. v. Lincoln

On January 31, 2014, a California Appellate Court reversed an employer’s summary judgment despite well documented evidence of the employee’s history of poor performance.  This decision—Cheal v. El Camino Hospital (No. HO36548)—addresses a pivotal question for employers: when can employers legitimately terminate a protected employee because of poor performance?

At the age of 61,

California Labor Code section 226 requires employers to provide accurate wage statements, and enumerates specific requirements for such wage statements.  The statute also provides for penalties should an employer violate section 226, and allows a prevailing employee to recover attorneys’ fees in connection with prosecuting claims for alleged wage statement violations.

On May 6, 2014,

On April 30, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Ronald El-Malik Curtis against the City of Oakland, and several individual city officials on the ground that facially-neutral conduct could support a finding of racial animus sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim when