California Governor Gavin Newsom has issued Executive Order N-6-26, a “first-in-the-nation” order aimed at preparing workers, businesses, and communities for potential workforce disruption associated with artificial intelligence. While the order does not create immediate new compliance obligations for employers, it is an important development for California businesses because it previews where state policy, regulation

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to adopt new Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) regulations.

These proposed rules are intended to implement and clarify PAGA procedures that were substantially amended by legislative reforms in 2024, including more detailed notice requirements, expanded administrative “cure” processes, and

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

On June 18, 2024, Governor Newsom announced a deal had been reached with the legislature and business groups to reform California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

The agreement apparently comes after several months of negotiations between various business groups that had been pushing forward a ballot measure to repeal PAGA and labor advocates.

The following

2020 presented a myriad of challenges for California employers, including the constant march of California court opinions regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.

The California courts focused on two issues involving PAGA this year:

  • Can a Plaintiff proceed with their PAGA claim (standing)?
  • Can a Defendant compel arbitration when there is a PAGA

In Hamid H. Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corporation (January 4, 2018), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the plaintiff failed to comply with required administrative procedures prior to bringing a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) because he failed to provide sufficient notice to the California Labor