Insight & Commentary on California Workplace Law Issues & Developments
California’s Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 53, which creates a comprehensive regulatory framework for advanced AI. The law takes effect January 1, 2026.
SB 53 is designed to govern what it calls “frontier” AI models, which are large, cutting-edge systems built by major developers with substantial resources. The central aim of the law is…
A good development for employers from the district court. At the beginning of the year, Senate Bill (SB) 399 became effective, restricting employers from requiring participation in mandatory meetings addressing religious or political topics, including those concerning labor organizations. Shortly thereafter, several business groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 399 and…
California’s labor landscape is changing with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 288, which expands both worker rights and the authority of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). Employers should be aware of these changes, as they may impact workplace policies, union interactions, and the handling of labor disputes.
PERB is a state…
The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date or face consequences such as forfeiting arbitration rights, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act…
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.
In early July, Moriana, the named plaintiff-employee at the center of Viking…
California’s Healthy Workplace, Healthy Family Act (the Act) requiring most employers to provide paid sick leave for covered employees went into effect in 2015. However, in 2017 and 2021, two separate California federal district courts concluded that the Act was not applicable to rail workers due to preemption by the federal Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act…
In Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc., the California Court of Appeal reiterated that federal law preempts California meal and rest period requirements for motor carriers and confirmed such preemption also applies to short-haul drivers.
A truck driver filed a complaint against his employer alleging various wage and hour violations, including failure to provide meal…
