Menu

Showing 58 posts in California.

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 3: Harassment Training Deadline Extended

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and its impact on California employers. On the third day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: three French hens and SB 778. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 2: Longer Statute of Limitations for Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Claims was not on Employers' Holiday Wish List

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and the law's impact on California employers. On the second day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: two turtle doves and AB 9. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 1: No Rehire Provision is Now a No-No

It's back! Hard to believe another year is coming to a close and the holidays are fast approaching. As always, the legislature is keeping California employers busy; California has once again enacted many employment laws this year set to go into effect in 2020. In the spirit of the season, it's time for our annual "12 days of the holidays" series, where we will blog daily about one California law and its impact on California employers. So, on the first day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: a partridge in a pear tree and SB 749. More ›

California Law Prohibits No-Rehire Provisions in Settlement Agreements

California law typically frowns on contracts that restrict a person's ability to engage in trade for their chosen profession. In keeping with this philosophy, the California legislature has passed AB 749, which was recently signed into law by Governor Newsom. Employers are encouraged to review their settlement agreements to address the new prohibition of no-rehire provisions before the law goes into effect on January 1, 2020. More ›

Significant Win for Franchisors as McDonald's Dodges Franchisee Wage and Hour Claims

In a major victory for franchisors, a panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held that McDonald's Corporation cannot be liable as a joint employer for the wage and hour violations of its franchisees. Importantly, the court held that McDonald's involvement with its franchises and franchise workers is focused on maintaining brand standards and "does not represent control over wages, hours or working conditions." However, uncertainty remains over the liability of franchisors that impose more than just branding and marketing standards on its franchisees. More ›

California Governor Extends Workplace Harassment Training Deadline to 2021

Last December, this blog detailed SB1343 and the law's requirements for employers with five or more employees to provide anti-harassment training. SB1343 expands existing anti-harassment training requirements, and also covers seasonal and temporary workers. Employers are required to provide their non-supervisory employees with one hour of training, and supervisory employees are required to complete two hours of training. The training must then be repeated every two years thereafter. Originally, the deadline for completing the initial training was set at January 1, 2020. More ›

Hair Today…Discrimination Tomorrow? California and New York Adopt Hair Style Protections, Others Surely to Follow

On July 3, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill No. 188 providing legal protection from discrimination in the workplace and in public schools for natural and protective hairstyles historically worn by black people and people of color. This bill expanded the scope of what is considered a protected race category under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to include traits "historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles." Following California's lead, New York then became the second state to ban discrimination based on natural hairstyles on July 12, 2019, when Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law S.6209A/A.7797A, which amends the Human Rights Law and Dignity for All Students Act. There is now proposed legislation in New Jersey as well, modeled after Senate Bill No. 188. This means employers in other states should take a hard look at their workplace hair and grooming policies to avoid discrimination actions. More ›

Hair today...discrimination case tomorrow?

California is well on its way to unanimously becoming the first state to ban discrimination in schools and workplaces based on hair/hairstyles, hair textures, and protective hairstyles such as twists, braids, updos, and wigs. The CROWN (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) Act would prohibit employers and schools from enforcing discriminatory grooming, hair keeping policies, or dress codes that could disproportionately affect people of color. Going forward, California employers should look at their related polices to ensure they are non-discriminatory and do not specifically target hairstyles or hair textures of people of color. More ›

It's Risky Business for California Employers when Scheduling Employees On-Call

In Skylar Ward v. Tilly's Inc., the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal for the State of California found, in a split decision, that employees who were required to call in two hours before a scheduled on-call shift in order to confirm their shift, should be compensated under laws governing "reporting time pay." This decision should remind California employers of the need to compensate on-call employees consistent with the Labor Code, Wage Orders, and any other applicable laws. Employers should also consider that—pursuant to the majority opinion in Ward v. Tilly—requiring employees to call in ahead of on-call shifts amounts to asking them to report to work and they should be compensated for this time. More ›

California Appeals Court Confirms Constitutionality of Piece-Rate Compensation Statute

In Nisei Farmers League vs. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, California’s Fifth Appellate District confirmed the constitutional validity of Labor Code section 226.2, a recently enacted law providing that employees paid on a piece-rate basis must be paid at least minimum wage, and must be paid for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time” separate from any piece-rate compensation. Under a piece-rate system, employees are not paid by the hour, but rather based on activities, task or units of production completed. For example, employees are paid by the number of widgets they produce. The goal of the statute was to make sure employers who pay under a piece-rate system also comply with all minimum wage law requirements that apply to hourly workers. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email