Workforce Bulletin

On July 10, 2026, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended the Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO), placing additional restrictions and requirements on employers who make employment decisions based on criminal history (the “Amendment”). The Amendment took effect on August 10, 2026. The Amendment prohibits employers from taking adverse action based on out-of-state criminal history related to conduct that is lawful in California, including abortion-related health care, drag performances, gender-affirming care, and spontaneous abortion. The Amendment also requires employers to take additional steps prior to issuing adverse action based on criminal history and increases the administrative penalty for violations and the amount of liquidated damages available in a lawsuit.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• States Lead on Workplace AI: With federal regulators slowing new rules, individual states are setting their own requirements for employers that use artificial intelligence (AI), creating a patchwork for multistate workforces.
• California’s Executive Order: Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order (EO) targeting AI-driven labor market disruption and directing state agencies to recommend updates to California’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act for AI-related mass layoffs.
• Connecticut’s New AI Law: Beginning October 1, 2027, employers must give written notice to applicants and employees when AI substantially influences a hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination decision.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Courtney McFate and Elizabeth S. Torkelsen break down two state actions shaping AI in the workplace: California Governor Newsom’s EO on labor protections in the age of AI, and Connecticut’s new transparency and nondiscrimination requirements for employers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: Starting October 1, 2025, new AI rules in California will change how businesses in the state use automated tools in hiring, promotions, and other workplace decisions.

Key Takeaways for Employers:

• Anti-Discrimination Measures: The new regulations specifically target discriminatory practices in employers’ use of automated decision systems (ADS).

• Recordkeeping Requirements: Employers are now mandated to retain all ADS records and data for a minimum of four years.

• Regulatory Precedent: California’s proactive stance on AI regulation is anticipated to influence similar regulatory frameworks nationwide, establishing a precedent for other states.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Frances M. Green provides an essential breakdown of the new California regulations, including actionable insights on conducting risk assessments and aligning them with existing cybersecurity and privacy audits to ensure compliance.

On November 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (the “Agency” or the “CPPA”) Board met to discuss and commence formal rulemaking on several regulatory subjects, including California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) updates (“CCPA Updates”) and Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT). Shortly thereafter, on November 22, 2024, the CPPA published several rulemaking documents for public review and comment that recently ended February 19, 2025. If adopted, these proposed regulations will make California the next state to regulate AI at a broad and comprehensive scale, in line with Colorado’s SB 24-205, which contains similar sweeping consumer AI protections. Upon consideration of review and comments received, the CPPA Board will decide whether to adopt or further modify the regulations at a future Board meeting.  This post summarizes the proposed ADMT regulations, that businesses should review closely and be prepared to act to ensure future compliance.

Article 11 of the proposed ADMT regulations outlines actions intended to increase transparency and consumers’ rights related to the application of ADMT. The proposed rules define ADMT as “any technology that processes personal information and uses computation to execute a decision, replace human decisionmaking, or substantially facilitate human decisionmaking.” The regulations further define ADMT as a technology that includes software or programs, uses the output of technology as a key factor in a human’s decisionmaking (including scoring or ranking), and includes profiling. ADMT does not include technologies that do not execute a decision, replace human decisionmaking, or substantially facilitate human decisionmaking (this includes web hosting, domain registration, networking, caching, website-loading, data storage, firewalls, anti-virus, anti-malware, spam and robocall-filtering, spellchecking, calculators, databases, spreadsheets, or similar technologies). The proposed ADMT regulations will require businesses to notify consumers about their use of ADMT, along with their rationale for its implementation. Businesses also would have to provide explanations on ADMT output in addition to a process for consumers to request to opt-out from such ADMT use.

As the Southern California wildfires rage on with devastating consequences, employers may be grappling to formulate an appropriate response. Employers may have specific legal obligations as well as optional ways to provide assistance to affected employees. This publication addresses applicable employment laws that implicate pay, leaves, and other aspects of employment that may be impacted by the wildfires. Employers should also review our publication on special benefits they may wish to provide.

Employer Obligations

Notice Requirement for New Hires

California law requires employers to provide non-exempt employees with a wage theft notice upon hire. Among other requirements, employers must notify employees if there is a state or federal emergency or disaster declaration applicable to the county or counties where the employee will work issued within 30 days before the employee’s first day of employment that may affect their health and safety. Accordingly, employers in Los Angeles and Ventura counties will need to notify non-exempt employees starting employment within thirty days after January 7, 2025 that the Governor issued an Emergency Proclamation related to the wildfires if the emergency may affect their health and safety during their employment.

The wildfires moving through Southern California have destroyed communities and displaced countless individuals. While the nation’s first responders are tirelessly working to contain and neutralize the devastation, many employers are grappling with how best to provide support for their affected employees.

Disaster Assistance to Employees

Employers may consider offering the following disaster assistance directly to employees:

• Qualified Disaster Relief Payments: Under Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), employers operating in states such as California, receiving FEMA assistance can make tax-free qualified disaster relief payments directly to impacted employees. The payments can be made for reasonable and necessary personal, family, or living expenses as a result of a qualified disaster. Funeral expenses as a result of a qualified disaster will also qualify under these payments. However, employers should be aware that these payments do not cover income replacement payments or expenses reimbursed through insurance of FEMA grants.
• Charitable Emergency Funds: Employers may provide tax-free emergency funds to employees through related 501(c)(3) charities and foundations. The specific rules and requirements for these 501(c)(3) entities, including whether and to what extent contributions are deductible, differ depending on whether the entity is an employer-sponsored public charity, an employer-sponsored private foundation, an employer-sponsored donor advised fund, or an unrelated public charity.

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) U.S. 639 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5^th 1104, when faced with employee arbitration agreements, California trial courts have regularly compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims first, while staying their representative, non-individual PAGA claims.

In an attempt to avoid arbitrating the named plaintiffs’ individual PAGA claims – and knowing that the representative, non-individual claims would be dismissed if the employers prevailed in an individual arbitration – more than a few plaintiff’s counsel have tried to circumvent Adolph by asserting that their clients were not bringing individual claims at all, but were only bringing claims on behalf of others. 

In response, employers have argued that, based on the clear statutory language, every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA action such that those individual claims have to be arbitrated first.

In what many would consider to be an employer-friendly decision, more than a decade ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified many of the general requirements for meal and rest periods under California law. But in 2021, the California Supreme Court issued employee-friendly decisions in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC and Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.  Since these latter decisions have seemingly spurred an increased number of class and PAGA actions alleging meal and rest period violations, it makes sense to revisit the requirements. 

California wage-hour law is governed in large part by 18 different wage orders that apply to different industries and occupations.  “The number of wage orders, and their internal variations, reflects the reality that differing aspects of work in differing industries may call for different kinds of regulation,” as the California Supreme Court explained in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.  Indeed, as the Court explained in Brinker, “[w]hat will suffice [for meal and rest breaks] may vary from industry to industry.”

With that in mind, this tip is not a one-size-fits-all guide but instead discusses California’s meal and rest period requirements generally.

On Election Day 2024, voters in six states weighed in on ballot initiatives that addressed several employment law topics. Among these were propositions to change state minimum wages and mandate paid sick leave for workers. The outcomes were mixed.

Alaska

In Alaska, voters passed by a narrow margin Ballot Measure 1, which will increase the state’s minimum wage from the current rate of $11.73 per hour to $13.00 per hour on July 1, 2025. It will subsequently rise to $14.00 per hour on July 1, 2026, and $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2027. Increases thereafter will be calculated based on inflation.

Ballot Measure 1 included other provisions affecting workplaces. Its passage means that many employers will need to comply with new paid sick leave requirements. Starting July 1, 2025, eligible employees will accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and will be allowed to use at least 40 and up to 56 hours of accrued paid sick leave annually, depending on how many employees work for their employer.

A third portion of Ballot Measure 1, also effective July 1, 2025, prohibits so-called “captive audience” meetings. The new law will prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who refuse to attend company meetings about political or religious topics.

California continues to be the birthplace of ideas that complicate employment laws. True to form, it is the first state to adopt the concept of intersectionality in its anti-discrimination statutes.

On September 27, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1137 (SB 1137) into law. This legislation amends several provisions of existing California law to clarify that unlawful discriminatory practices may include “any combination” of protected characteristics or traits – not just a single one. 

Of particular importance to companies: SB 1137 thus modifies  the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by business establishments, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits harassment and discrimination in employment. The updates to these laws will take effect on January 1, 2025.

Lam v. University of Hawaii

While SB 1137 is the first statutory law of its kind, the concept of intersectional discrimination is not new. Thirty years ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed this challenge. In Lam v. University of Hawaii, a woman of Vietnamese descent filed a lawsuit against the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, alleging that the law school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her on the bases of her race, sex, and national origin. Lam had applied but was twice rejected from the law school’s Pacific Asian Legal Studies Program.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 5. During this election season, employers may question whether the law requires them to allow employees time off to vote, often referred to as “voting leave”, and if so, whether such leave is paid. Perhaps just as urgently, employers may need to manage workplace political talk and potential consequences.

The short answer about voting leave is the same lawyers often give: it depends! Most states and many local jurisdictions have their own laws addressing voting leave and related rights. This article is not a comprehensive, state-by-state guide, and employers should check applicable laws in their jurisdictions when in doubt. Instead, this overview is a reminder of potential issues and best practices to ensure a safe and legally sound workplace in the days before and after Election Day.

Voting Leave

State and local laws on voting leave impose varying obligations on employers. Employers should review the applicable state laws and regulations of every jurisdiction in which they have employees. To highlight a few:

• California: if an employee doesn’t have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote, the employee may take off enough working time that, when added to the voting time available outside of working hours, will enable the employee to vote. Up to two hours of working time off must be without loss of pay. The time off can be at the start or end of the working shift. If the employee knows in advance that time off will be necessary to vote, the employee must give the employer at least two working days’ notice. Note that the law requires employers to post a notice to employees advising them of their rights regarding voting leave.

Much has been made about the recent, hurried legislation to amend the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in order to take the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act (“FPEAA”) off the California ballot this November.  

If passed by California voters, the FPEAA would have repealed PAGA and replaced it with a new statute and a new process that were more employer-friendly -- and more employee friendly. 

(The idea of a ballot initiative to repeal or create laws may sound very unusual to anyone outside of California.  But California permits this kind of mob rule, for better or worse, so long as enough signatures are gathered and verified to qualify to be placed on the ballot.)

For all of the celebration about how these PAGA amendments will benefit employers, the PAGA amendments remind me of nothing so much as New Coke. 

You don’t know about New Coke, do you? 

You see, back in 1985, Coca-Cola announced that it was changing the longtime formula for its soda and replacing it with a new formula that everyone would love even more. There was much excitement about it.  (Keep in mind that this was before the internet, smartphones, texting, streaming, etc.)  The launch of the new version of the soda was covered in the mainstream media, and people just couldn’t wait. They actually lined up outside stores to be the first to get their hands on it.

And then New Coke was launched.

In Elijah Baer, et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., fifteen plaintiffs filed a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) representative action lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) alleging wage-hour violations of California law. Two of the plaintiffs were employed by Staffmark Investment LLC (“Staffmark”) – a non-party staffing agency – and assigned to work at Tesla for a period in 2020. The other plaintiffs were direct former or current employees of Tesla going back to 2017. After Tesla removed the action to federal court, it moved to compel arbitration.

The plaintiffs signed various arbitration agreements throughout their employment. From the fall of 2018 to May 2022, Tesla utilized a recruiting software called Averture. According to Tesla, Averture required applicants to create a secure online profile with their own personal information. Eight of the plaintiffs signed offer letters with Tesla through Averture containing an arbitration provision. These plaintiffs did not dispute that they signed, and Tesla countersigned, the offer letters.

At some point in 2022, Tesla stopped using Averture and started using a system called Inside Tesla. The security measures applicable to Averture were largely the same as those employed by Inside Tesla; however, applicants who were offered employment under Inside Tesla signed an offer letter and a standalone arbitration agreement. Four of the plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements through the Inside Tesla system.

With an anticipated increase in workers no longer subject to exemption from overtime pay under a new U.S. Department of Labor rule that is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2024 (learn more here), employers will need to sharpen their pencils and make adjustments. What’s more, on that date, many states and localities will see a hike in minimum wage requirements.

Most of these jurisdictions will have straightforward rate adjustments, with a uniform increase across all industries. However, a somewhat more complicated and significant development comes out of California, which has raised minimum wage mandates for just one sector.

On December 11, 2023, the City of San Francisco released the San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines (“Guidelines”).  The Guidelines set forth parameters for City employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors who use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform work on behalf of the City.

Specifically, the Guidelines encourage City employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors to use generative AI tools for purposes such as preparing initial drafts of documents, “translating” text into levels of formality or for a ...

Almost a decade ago, in September 2014, California was the first state in the nation to enact legislation prohibiting non-disparagement clauses that aimed to prevent consumers from writing negative reviews of a business. Popularly referred to as the “Yelp Bill,” AB 2365 was codified at California Civil Code Section 1670.8, which prohibits businesses from threatening or otherwise requiring consumers, in a contract or proposed contract for sale or lease of consumer goods, to waive their right to make any statement—positive or negative—regarding the business or ...

Although incorporating nondiscretionary compensation like commissions and (promised or contractual) production bonuses into the calculation of the “regular rate of pay” has been federal law for decades, claims involving that calculation – or lack thereof – have increasingly been brought by California plaintiffs’ lawyers.  Even though miscalculations or noncalculations may result in a difference of a few dollars or even pennies lost, plaintiffs’ lawyers litigate these claims in hopes of obtaining penalties that far outweigh any underpayments.  Rather than ...

As we reported in the first installment of our series on pay transparency, pay equity legislation continues to trend nationwide. While Part I focused on salary range disclosure legislation, in Part II, we highlight mandatory pay data reporting requirements that are being considered in Massachusetts.

What is Mandatory Pay Data Reporting?

Pay data reporting laws require covered employers to submit detailed compensation data reports, often broken down by race and gender, to state-designated agencies. To date, California and Illinois have adopted such laws. Under California law ...

An amended version of AB 1228 was passed in the California Legislature on September 14, 2023, [1] which would raise minimum wages for fast food workers and water down the authority of the new Fast Food Council that was created in a bill passed last year. AB 1228, originally introduced on February 16, 2023, was revised on September 11, 2023 after negotiations occurred between labor unions and the fast food industry. It significantly modifies provisions from the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (FAST Recovery Act) passed last year, which does not go into effect ...

On September 5, 2023, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 403 (“SB-403”), paving the way for a state-wide ban on caste discrimination to be signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. 

SB-403 would amend the definition of “ancestry” under the California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and certain provisions of the Education Code to include and define “caste.” According to the introductory language to the bill, rather than adding a new category of protected characteristics, the amendments “are declarative of and clarify ...

With $3 million in funding from A.B. 102, California’s recent appropriations bill, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the administrative body charged by statute to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions, will reconvene for the first time since 2004, when it was defunded for budgetary reasons.  The IWC was established in 1913 and has gone through several changes throughout the years.  Its most recent, lasting impact on employment in California, however, consists of 17 “wage orders” regulating the wages, hours and working conditions in specific industries. 

The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District recently issued its opinion regarding business-related expenses in Thai v. International Business Machines Corporation. The Court found that expenses incurred by employees in direct consequence of performing their jobs may be reimbursable regardless of whether such expenses are directly caused by the employer.

Paul Thai was employed by defendant and respondent IBM. Thai required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, a computer and accessories in order to perform the functions of his job. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a stay-at-home order that instructed all California residents “[t]o stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors” and any other additional sectors later designated as critical. After the order went into effect, IBM directed Thai and thousands of other workers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and the other IBM workers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home, and IBM did not reimburse them for those expenses.

On July 21, 2023, a unanimous three-judge panel once again affirmed a California federal court’s ruling that the truck drivers who deliver ingredients from Domino’s Southern California Supply Chain Center to Domino’s California franchisees are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

Employers with operations both large and small in California are all too familiar with California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), the controversial 2004 statute that permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s attorney general and file suit on behalf of other employees to seek to recover penalties for alleged Labor Code violations.

PAGA lawsuits are filed with great regularity by members of the plaintiffs’ bar.

And the in terrorem effect of PAGA lawsuits, in which a plaintiff need not satisfy class certification criteria to represent an entire workforce, has led many employers to pay large settlements just to avoid legal fees and the possibility of larger awards -- even when the evidence of unlawful conduct is spotty or entirely absent.

California businesses, including employers, that have not already complied with their statutory data privacy obligations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), including as to employee and job applicant personal information, should be taking all necessary steps to do so. See No More Exceptions: What to Do When the California Privacy Exemptions for Employee, Applicant and B2B Data Expire on January 1, 2023. As background, a covered business is one that “does business” in California, and either has annual gross revenues of $25 million, annually buys sells or shares personal information of 100,00 consumers or households, or derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling or sharing consumers’ personal information. It also applies, in certain circumstances, to entities that control or are controlled by a covered business or joint ventures. Covered businesses may be exempt from obligations under certain enumerated entity-level or information-level carve-outs.

Handbooks are developed to outline policies and procedures employees must abide by in the workplace.  But a handbook serves a dual, equally important purpose:  to act as an operable defense against workplace claims brought by employees as a way to demonstrate that the employer had equitable and compliant policies in place.

In California, employers are required to disseminate such workplace information to employees another way: through workplace postings.  The Department of Industrial Relations requires workplace postings be displayed in a ‘conspicuous’ place where they are easily visible to the intended audience, such as a bulletin board or mail-room/break-room wall or, in special circumstances, in a binder if there is no room to post such materials.  In California, every business must post not only the Wage Order(s) that apply to its operation and the minimum wage[1] where employees can see them, but also 16 other employment notices.  Failure to post required, up-to-date notices can have serious consequences, including costly penalties[2] and criminal charges. 

The California Supreme Court has issued its highly anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., concluding that plaintiffs who must arbitrate their “individual” PAGA claims are not deprived of standing to pursue “non-individual” PAGA claims in court on behalf of others.

More precisely, Justice Goodwin H. Liu wrote that “an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.”

The current statewide minimum wage rate in California is $15.50 for all employers. However, some localities across the Golden State have set their own higher minimum wage rate. For many of these localities, the next increase is set to take effect on July 1, 2023.

For example, in Los Angeles County, the minimum wage increases from $16.04 to $16.78 in the City of Los Angeles and from $15.96 to $16.90 in unincorporated areas.  Here is a list of those local cities and counties raising their minimum wage rates:

The first of the year brought with it new pay transparency obligations for employers in several states, including Rhode Island, California, and Washington.  Halfway through the year, this type of legislation remains a focus for legislators from coast to coast, including in jurisdictions like Colorado, where similar laws are already on the books. While these proposed laws are all generally rooted in pay equity principles, their substantive differences and sheer volume raise serious questions for employers looking to recruit, hire, and retain talented employees across the country.

Following the California Supreme Court’s remand of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Court of Appeal in that same case held that the defendant-employer had not committed “knowing and intentional” violations of the wage statement statute by not including meal period premiums on the wage statements and had not “willfully” paid all wages due at the end of employment by not previously paying meal period premiums that were owed. The Court held that, although the employer did not prevail on its defense that employees in a certified class action were subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements, neither waiting time penalties (capped at 30 days’ of wages at the daily rate of pay for each former employee) nor wage statement penalties (capped at $4,000 per employee) could be imposed against the employer given the good faith dispute that any meal period premiums were owed.

The California Office of Administrative Law has approved the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety’s (Cal/OSHA) COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Regulations (Non-Emergency Regulations). As a result, on February 3, 2023, Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) expired, and the Non-Emergency Regulations went into effect.

Although extending many of the ETS requirements, as we previously reported, the Non-Emergency Regulations contain some notable changes. A redline comparing the Non-Emergency Regulations to the ETS is available here. Some important changes include:

California is one of a growing list of states requiring employers to make certain pay transparency disclosures to employees and applicants. California employers already had an obligation to provide pay scales to job applicants upon request; however, as we previously reported, under SB 1162, employers must now disclose pay scales to current employees upon request, and employers with 15 or more employees must include pay scales in job postings.

The Los Angeles City Council passed the Fair Work Week Ordinance (“FWWO”) that seeks to “implement enforcement measures for the new fair work week employment standards” for employees in the retail sector.  Going into effect April 1, 2023, the FWWO will apply to any person, association, organization, partnership, business trust, limited liability company or corporation in the retail business or trade sector that directly or indirectly exercises control over the wages, hours or conditions of at least 300 employees globally.  This includes employees through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary staffing agency.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we shed light on the growing issues surrounding electronic employee monitoring, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) disavowal of comments by a former General Counsel (GC) regarding abortion travel benefits, and California’s latest marijuana employment protection law.

In the wake of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we have been closely monitoring legal developments across the country. In addition to well publicized “trigger laws” that were effectuated as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order, states have taken up a variety of legislative actions in response to the ruling, which placed authority for the regulation of abortion with the states.

California plaintiffs’ lawyers typically bring every type of wage-hour claim they can.  Increasingly, however, they have focused on one type of claim – wage statement violations.

As we have previously written about, bringing class and representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) alleging that employers did not fully comply with California’s onerous wage statement laws has become a lucrative practice for the plaintiffs’ bar.  Given the flurry of litigation, it is beneficial for employers that do business in California to review their wage statements to best ensure compliance.

The California legislature has presented S.B. 1162 (“the Bill”) to Governor Gavin Newsom. If the Governor signs the Bill into law, California will follow the lead of jurisdictions like Colorado and New York City by requiring many employers to include pay scales in job postings. The Bill would also impose pay equity reporting requirements, not just on large employers obligated to do so under federal law, but on any private employer with 100 or more employees, including those whose “employees” are hired through labor contractors. Those reports will also have to include breakdowns of aggregate data not previously collected.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we look at labor law and pay developments from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and in California.

California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) give consumers substantial rights regarding the disclosure and use of their personal information collected by businesses subject to the law. Significantly, CCPA/CPRA define the term “consumer” to mean any California resident. This broad definition extends not only a business’s individual customers, but also its employees, job-applicants and even its business-to-business (B2B) contacts. We have previously discussed the compliance requirements of these data privacy laws on organizations doing business in California, and the moratoriums for B2B and employee/applicant data that that the Legislature had put in place exempting covered businesses from complying with certain requirements of the laws.[1] Unless extended by the Legislature (which appears unlikely) or preempted by federal privacy legislation (which appears even more unlikely), the moratoriums will sunset on January 1, 2023. Accordingly, covered businesses should begin  preparing now to meet their upcoming expanded statutory obligations to protect consumers data privacy.

Employers based outside of California can suffer knockout blows if they enter the ring as employers in California and operate under the mistaken assumption that adherence to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is the same as complying with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders.  Below are the main ways (but certainly not the only ways) employers are “caught cold” because they do not receive or apply California wage-and-hour training and learn the hard way that the plaintiffs’ bar will not pull any punches.

The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has held that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15, 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana could have a tremendous impact upon pending and future litigation, as well as employment practices in the state.

For some California employers, it will impact pending Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) litigation where the named plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with a class and representative action waiver.

For the second time this spring, a California statute designed to promote diversity in corporate boardrooms was blocked by a state judge. On May 13, 2022, in Crest v. Padilla I (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV27561) (Crest), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that California Corporations Code Section 301.3 (SB 826), which requires publicly listed corporations in California to have women on their boards, violates the Equal Protection Clause of California’s Constitution. California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber has since announced plans to appeal the decision, stating that “SB 826 was passed not to remove men from the boardroom, but simply to make room for highly qualified women who have been excluded from the corporate board selection process for decades.”

Prompted by the widespread adoption and use of video-conferencing software following the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers have shifted toward video interviews to evaluate potential hires. Even as employers have begun to require in-office attendance, the widespread use of video interviewing has continued, because it is a convenient and efficient way to evaluate applicants. Some of the video interviewing tools used by employers incorporate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of the interview process. Often, employers contract with third-party vendors to provide these AI-powered interviewing tools, as well as other tech-enhanced selection procedures.

A California Superior Court judge has invalidated state legislation that required boards of publicly held corporations headquartered in California to include a minimum number of directors from underrepresented communities.  The court’s decision effectively strikes down Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”), a law enacted with the goal of increasing diversity on boards of directors, paving the way for a parallel outcome to a similar challenge of a statutory mandate for increased gender diversity on boards of directors.

Promotion of “Underrepresented Communities” Struck Down

In a recent post addressing the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, we mentioned that employers in California will want to consider the “pros and cons” of arbitration agreements should an employer-friendly decision be issued in that case, rather than rush to implement them.

In response, more than a few people have asked the same or similar questions -- What are the “cons” of arbitration agreements? Why wouldn’t an employer want to use arbitration agreements, particularly if they will foreclose Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) actions in California?

There are “cons” to these agreements -- and they are not insignificant.

Silence can be telling.

That is especially so in the legal industry.

In the context of a hearing or oral argument, if judges or justices don’t ask an attorney a question, it can be incredibly encouraging – or incredibly discouraging.  It often means that the judges or justices have already made up their minds after having read the parties’ briefs and simply don’t have any questions or don’t need to hear anything more.

On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court, in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (Cal., Jan. 27, 2022) __ P.3d __, 2022 WL 244731, clarified the evidentiary standard for presenting and evaluating retaliation claims under California Labor Code Section 1102.5 (“section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim”).   Lawson involved a workplace retaliation claim brought by a sales representative selling paint products to home improvement stores in Southern California. The plaintiff claimed his employer terminated him because he complained about being instructed to alter the tint of certain paint colors to avoid having to repurchase less popular paints from the retailer later.

In 2003, California lawmakers enacted Labor Code Section 1102.6, setting forth a framework for whistleblower retaliation claims that varied from the burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 (“McDonnell Douglas”).  Despite section 1102.6’s enactment, some California courts continued to apply the McDonnell Douglas test to section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claims.

On January 26, 2022, the City and County of San Francisco released an updated Health Order No. C19-07y (the “Updated Health Order”), which addresses a number of rules issued in an effort to combat continued spread of COVID-19, including changes in exemptions to the universal indoor mask mandate.  Specifically, effective February 1, 2022, the Updated Health Order renews a previously-suspended masking exemption for vaccinated workplaces, with a few significant changes.

First, under the revised mask exemption, only employees who are “Up to Date” on vaccination (see below for definition) may go unmasked in the workplace, assuming the other conditions for the exemption are met.  Other individuals must wear masks at all times, subject to limited exceptions (e.g., alone, while eating).  Further, consistent with the Cal/OSHA definition of an outbreak, this exemption only applies if there have been no outbreaks (currently defined as three or more COVID-19 cases in an “exposed group” within a 14-day period) in the past 30 days.

Employers with operations both large and small in California are all too familiar with California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), the controversial statute that permits a single employee to stand in the shoes of the state’s attorney general and file suit on behalf of other employees to seek to recover penalties for alleged Labor Code violations.

The in terrorem effect of PAGA lawsuits, in which a plaintiff need not satisfy class certification criteria to represent an entire workforce, has led many employers to pay large settlements just to avoid legal fees and the possibility of larger awards, even when the evidence of unlawful conduct is spotty or entirely absent.

Will 2022 be the year that PAGA is repealed?

On December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) announced new Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings (“CDPH Guidance”), implementing a mandatory mask mandate for individuals (employees and patrons) in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccination status, beginning on December 15, 2021 through at least January 15, 2022.  The CDPH Guidance requires that masks be worn by all individuals over the age of two, unless exempt for disability-related or medical condition-based reasons, and recommends the use of surgical masks or higher-level respirators.

FAQs issued by the CDPH specify that the CDPH Guidance applies to workplaces, and clarify that local public health regulations remain in effect for localities that have previously adopted face covering measures prior to issuance of the CDPH Guidance that apply regardless of vaccination status. That is, the CDPH Guidance only applies to local health jurisdictions that do not have existing indoor masking requirements.  Notably, the San Francisco Department of Public Health (“SFDPH”) has taken the position, in its updated Order and FAQs, that its own masking rules remain in place—including exemptions for “stable cohorts” with 100% vaccination rates, among other criteria.  Marin County and Contra Costa County have taken similar positions regarding the applicability of local health order mask exceptions.  It remains unclear whether local mask exceptions apply given the CDPH Guidance masking rules.

More than three years after its landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana to determine whether Epic Systems extends to arbitration agreements that include waivers of representative actions brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Employers with operations in California, who have been plagued by the filing of boilerplate PAGA actions, could be heard to breathe a sigh of relief.

Misclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees is a costly mistake.  Among the many issues arising from misclassification is potential liability under federal and state minimum wage and overtime laws.  As the laws continue to change and develop, so do the risks to contracting entities.

Federal Changes

On September 27, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Garment Worker Protection Act, which makes California the first state to ban piece rate pay for garment workers, requiring instead that they be paid the minimum hourly wage.

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual defines piece rate as, “[w]ork paid for according to the number of units turned out … [that] must be based upon an ascertainable figure paid for completing a particular task or making a particular piece of goods.”

On September 22, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a groundbreaking bill that affects warehouse distribution centers (“covered employers”) and their employees.

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 701, requires covered employers to provide nonexempt employees with a written description of each quota that the employee is subject to, including the number of tasks to be performed, or materials to be produced or handled, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota. The disclosures must be made at the time of hire, or ...

Since the Supreme Court issued its seminal 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, acknowledging that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) permits the use of arbitration agreements with class action waivers, many employers have implemented arbitration programs for their employees. Those arbitration programs have been aimed, in no small part, at avoiding the class and collective actions that have overwhelmed employers, particularly in California.

In response, California passed AB 51, which prohibits imposing “as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit” the requirement that an individual “waive any right, forum or procedure” available under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and Labor Code.

It is no secret that the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) has been a cash cow for plaintiffs’ counsel in California.

PAGA allows a single employee (and their counsel) to file suit on behalf of other employees for alleged Labor Code violations, without having to go through the class action mechanism.  In other words, a PAGA plaintiff can file suit seeking penalties for hundreds or thousands of employees, yet never need to show that there are common issues susceptible to common proof – or even that their own claims are typical of those of other employees.

As a result, there has been little to prevent plaintiffs and their counsel from filing massive PAGA actions on behalf of all of an employer’s employees, even without having any basis to believe that many those employees suffered any violation at all.

On September 1, 2021, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey approved two versions of a ballot initiative (version 1, version 2) concerning the relationship between app-based drivers (such as those who transport passengers or deliver food) and the companies with which they contract. If passed, the ballot initiative will enact the Relationship Between Network Companies and App-Based Drivers Act (the “Act”) and classify such drivers as independent contractors, not employees. It will also require ride-sharing and food-delivery companies to provide them with certain benefits.

Many people are employed at airports.  Of those, many individuals work within the terminals for private companies.  Federal law requires that those employees who work in the terminals must go through security checks – just like travelers.

Jesus Cazares was one of those employees, working at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).  In bringing a lawsuit against his employer, Host International, Inc. – which operates the Admiral Club at LAX – Cazares alleged that he and his fellow employees were not paid for the time they spent passing through airport security checks en route to their work at the Admiral Club.  The district court rejected the notion that such time is compensable under California law and, earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit agreed in Cazares v. Host International, Inc.

Counties across California are making a detour on the road to easing COVID-19 restrictions.

Los Angeles County  

On July 16, 2021, Los Angeles County issued an Order of the Health Officer (“the Order”) that requires all persons to wear face masks while in all indoor public settings, venues, gatherings, and businesses (i.e., office workplaces, retail, restaurants, theaters, meetings), with limited exceptions.  In indoor settings where there is close contact with unvaccinated individuals, the Order recommends that people consider wearing a higher level of protection, such as ...

California law generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees a premium of one hour of pay for non-compliant meal and rest periods. Employers have typically paid such premiums by using the employees’ standard hourly rates. A new California Supreme Court decision requires employers to pay premiums at a higher rate when employees receive nondiscretionary compensation. This change in the law not only will require employers to adjust how they calculate meal and rest period premiums going forward, but it also exposes some of them to litigation for their past practices if ...

California law generally requires that non-exempt employees be paid 1.5 times their “regular rate of pay” for work performed beyond 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day – and twice their “regular rate of pay” for time worked in excess of 12 hours in day or beyond 8 hours on the seventh day of the workweek.

While “regular rate of pay” is not expressly defined in the California Labor Code, there should be few questions about what that rate is when an employee works at the same rate during the workweek.

But when an employee works at two (or more) different rates of pay during a single ...

On May 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a win to Walmart in a lawsuit brought by Roderick Magadia (“Magadia”) alleging violations of California’s wage statement and meal break laws.

The Ninth Circuit overturned a $102 million dollar judgment issued by United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh – comprised of $48 million in statutory damages and $54 million in civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  It did so because it found that Magadia lacked Article III standing because he could not establish that he suffered ...

It has been an active week in California with the release of new statewide face covering guidance, the alignment of Los Angeles County and San Francisco with this guidance, and the withdrawal of the revised Cal/OSHA Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (the “Board”).

Of most importance, covered employers and workplaces must continue to comply with the more restrictive original Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) that have been in place since November 2020, not

On May 21, 2021, consistent with Governor Newsom's intention to fully reopen California by June 15, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) released “Beyond the Blueprint for Industry and Business Sectors” (“Beyond the Blueprint”), outlining the state’s latest reopening guidelines and restrictions.  Importantly, as reflected in the CDPH’s announcement, most employers (as discussed below) must still follow the more restrictive Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) (“ETS Standards”) (which we wrote about ...

For decades, the practice of motor carriers arranging for freight to be transported by independent owner-operators—i.e., independent contractors who drive their own trucks—has been ubiquitous. However, this practice is now under threat in California because of a recent court decision.

On April 28, 2021, in California Trucking Ass’n v. Bonta, No. 20-55106 (9th Cir. 2021) (“CTA v. Bonta”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the broad preemption language of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 ...

Our colleagues Denise Dadika and Vidaur Durazo of Epstein Becker Green have a new post on the Health Employment and Labor blog that will be of interest to our readers: "Changing Floors: Minimum Wage Increases for Health Leaders to Consider".

The following is an excerpt:

2021 is set to be a landmark year for the number of jurisdictions raising wage floors across the country. According to a National Employment Law Project report, as of January 1, 2021, 20 states and 32 municipalities raised their minimum wage. By the end of 2021, the report tracks that as many as 24 states and 50 ...

We have previously discussed on this page how rounding practices can be problematic.  Now, in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court has provided yet another reason for employers in California to review their time rounding practices, as well as their meal period practices.

As we previously discussed, more than eight years ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified many of the general requirements for meal and rest periods under California law.  Relevant to the decision in Donohue, the Court held that employees must be ...

In November 2020, California voters approved Proposition 22, removing businesses that operate on-demand rideshare and food delivery platforms from the scope of AB 5, California’s controversial independent contractor law.  But before voters approved Proposition 22, the Attorney General of California filed suit against two such businesses, seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and penalties.

As we wrote about here, in August 2020, a California Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting those businesses from treating drivers who use their ...

In our previous blog, we featured the California Privacy Rights Act’s Enhanced Cybersecurity Safeguards.[1] We now highlight significant privacy safeguards under the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) that will require advance planning in preparation for its January 1, 2023 effective date.[2] These new requirements will impact the collection and use of personal information across each organization. In particular, businesses, at a minimum, will need to assess and plan for:

• the effective implementation of data minimization policies, practices, and ...

As we have previously written here, the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California were properly classified as independent contractors, creating a new “ABC” test that has subsequently been codified as AB 5. A significant question left open was whether Dynamex would apply retroactively.

In Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., the California Supreme Court has concluded that Dynamex indeed applies retroactively ...

The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) leaps forward on cybersecurity by amending the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) to impose enhanced protections. The CPRA enhancements apply to “for profit” companies and other organizations: (a) with more than $25 million in gross revenues in the preceding calendar year, or (b) that annually buy, sell or share the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers or households, or (c) that derive at least 50 percent of their annual revenue from selling or sharing consumer personal information ...

At the time we are posting this, we are just weeks away from the inauguration of President-Elect Joseph Biden. Although perhaps not at the very top of the list of questions about the forthcoming Biden administration, somewhere on the list has to be this question: “What changes will we see in wage-hour law?”

We don’t have the proverbial crystal ball, but there are a number of issues that the Biden administration may focus on at some point during the next four years, be it through legislation, new rules implemented by the Department of Labor (DOL) or even executive orders.  They may ...

Which state’s wage and hour laws apply to Louisiana employers whose employees applied and interviewed for their jobs in Louisiana, acknowledged receipt of employment documents in Louisiana, and resided in Texas, Mississippi, and Ohio while they worked offshore?  The answer, according to the California Court of Appeals, is California if the employees are based in California.

In Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, employees worked on a vessel that provided maintenance services to offshore oil platforms located outside California’s ...

The first COVID-19 vaccines have started being shipped across the U.S. with the expectation that millions of doses will be administered over the next few weeks, with many times more over the coming months.  This is unequivocally good news and reason for optimism.  Meanwhile, however, the pandemic continues to spread nationwide and the numbers are rising rapidly.

The unabated second wave spike of COVID-19 infections arriving with the holiday season and our traditional time for gatherings has led governors, mayors and health departments across the country to tighten restrictions on ...

In a continuing trend, employers are abandoning on-call scheduling as states and cities continue to pass predictive scheduling laws.

1. What is Predictive Scheduling?

Predictive scheduling laws require employers to give employees adequate notice of when they will work so that they can plan for and around their work shifts.  The idea is that, unlike on-call scheduling, predictable schedules make it easier for workers, especially part-time retail and restaurant workers, to meet their needs, such as working another job, attending school, or arranging childcare.  The laws generally ...

The legal landscape surrounding independent contractor relationships in California continues to evolve swiftly.

As we wrote here, in January 2020, state court Judge William Highberger issued a decision holding that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts use of California’s version of the “ABC” test (as adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, and subsequently codified in AB 5) to differentiate between independent contractors and employees in the trucking industry.  More ...

As we have written here before, ride share and food delivery companies doing business in California had a lot at stake in the November 3, 2020 election. In fact, it was possible that those businesses might even cease doing business in California depending on the outcome of the election – or dramatically change their business models in the state.

Specifically, on November 3, 2020, California voters were asked to decide the fate of Proposition 22, the ballot initiative that would remove those companies from the scope of AB 5 and allow drivers to be treated as independent contractors. (As ...

November 3, 2020 has been circled on the calendars of app-based ride share and food delivery companies doing business in California for many months now.  After a new ruling by the California Court of Appeal, those companies have likely gone back and circled that date a few more times in thick red ink.

On November 3, 2020, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 22, the ballot initiative that, if passed, will allow app-based ride share and food delivery companies to treat drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees, carving them out of California’s ...

In the last several years, a growing number of states and municipalities have passed “ban the box” laws that to varying degrees prohibit employers from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal background until later in the hiring process and/or restrict employers from using certain criminal conviction information in connection with their hiring decisions.  Recently, St. Louis, Missouri joined this group, while California and Hawaii expanded their existing prohibitions on criminal history inquiries.

St. Louis, Missouri

Under the St. Louis ban the box Ordinance (the ...

In response to the increased use and enforcement of class and collective action waivers, plaintiffs’ attorneys are now relying on a new strategy to gain leverage over businesses.  More specifically, they have started to commence mass arbitrations by simultaneously filing hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of individual arbitration demands in an effort to trigger a business’ obligation to pay its share of filing fees for the arbitrations.

Depending on the number of arbitration demands at issue, the filing fees alone can add up to tens of millions of dollars.

Postmates ...

We recently authored “Elections May Decide Fate of Gig Worker Classification Regs,” the first of a series of articles on wage and hour issues for Law360.  Subscribers can access the full version here - following is an excerpt:

As the gig economy has grown, so too have questions about it. One of the most consequential questions in the past several years has been whether workers in the gig economy are properly classified as independent contractors for purposes of various federal and state statutes, or whether they should be classified as employees of the businesses with which they ...

On September 17, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1383 (“SB 1383“), expanding job-protected family leave for employees of companies with five or more employees. Previously, only employees of companies with 20 or more employees were entitled to these protections. According to the Governor’s office, this law, which becomes effective January 1, 2021, will expand job-protected family leave to nearly six million additional Californians.

Existing Law

The California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) currently makes it any an unlawful employment ...

On September 9, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1867 (“AB 1867”), mandating supplemental paid sick leave for employees of companies with 500 or more employees. AB 1867 fills gaps left open by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) (previously discussed here) and the Executive Order signed by Newson on April 22, 2020, which only applied to essential food workers (previously discussed here).

The sick leave portions of the law are effective immediately and covered employers must make the leave available no later than ...

As we wrote here just several days ago, Californians were facing the seemingly unimaginable this week– the possibility of living without ride share services for the foreseeable future.

In short, a state court judge issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requiring ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees in purported compliance with  AB 5, California’s controversial new law that only permits workers to be classified as independent contractors in most industries if they satisfy an “ABC” test.

After the same judge refused to stay the TRO during the ...

To some, it may feel like it was a lifetime ago when ride share companies did not even exist.  In those seemingly long-ago days, people relied upon friends to drive them to or from the airport, or assigned designated drivers for those nights when they attended events where alcohol would be served, or used other methods of transportation to travel the roadways to their various destinations.

Californians may soon be living like that again.

As we shared the other day, a California Superior Court has issued a temporary restraining order requiring ride share companies to treat their drivers as ...

We have written here frequently about California’s controversial AB 5 law, which permits companies to treat workers as independent contractors only if they satisfy a stringent “ABC” test.

The broad statute, unambiguously written to try to force companies to treat gig economy workers as employees, has been the subject of a great deal of debate and litigation, including a state court action filed by the State Attorney General trying to force ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees.

In the action filed by the State Attorney General, the Superior Court judge has ...

Seeking to prevent San Francisco’s return-to-work program from reigniting a surge of COVID-19 cases, the city’s Board of Supervisors (“Board”) has passed the “Healthy Buildings Ordinance” (“Ordinance”). This temporary emergency measure, which Mayor London Breed signed on July 17, 2020, and which is effective immediately, (i) establishes cleaning and disease prevention standards in tourist hotels and large commercial office buildings; (ii) mandates employee training on these standards and various protections employers must provide for workers as they ...

In recent years, wage discrimination has been a hot topic and with it, the question of whether employers may rely on a worker’s salary history to justify a pay disparity between male and female employees. In a 2018 case involving the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), Rizo v. Yovino, (about which we wrote here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) ruled that employers may not rely on prior salary to excuse unequal pay. On petition, the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded the case on a technical ground (i.e., because the judge who ...

The California Labor Commissioner’s Office has taken aim at Mobile Wash, Inc., a business that offers a mobile app for on-demand car washing and detailing services, filing a lawsuit against the company and its president to enforce AB5, California’s controversial law designed to make it more difficult for businesses to engage workers as independent contractors.

As we wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court for determining whether workers in California should be ...

Many hospitality businesses, such as restaurants and bars, have found themselves restructuring their daily operations in light of the current global COVID-19 health crisis, and the subsequent federal, state, and local shelter in place orders. For instance, where restaurants and bars once served customers on a dine-in basis, perhaps they are now restricted to take-out only or delivery options, and, as a result, many employers who are still operating in the wake of the pandemic now have very few employees with customer-facing roles.

Because of the necessary changes in daily ...

California law has specific requirements regarding the payment of overtime to employees. An employer’s failure to pay overtime—or failure to pay the correct overtime rate—can result in a litany of unintended Labor Code violations, which, in turn, can lead to enormous liability. Therefore, it is critical that employers understand when overtime is due and how to calculate the overtime rate of pay.

1.   When is overtime pay due?

In California, the general overtime requirement is that a nonexempt employee shall receive a premium of at least:

• One and one-half times the employee’s ...

On April 7, 2020, the California Court of Appeals (the “Court”) upheld summary judgment for two professional employer organizations (referred to in the decision as a “staffing agencies”) accused of harassment and discrimination by one of its “leased” employees. In Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, the Court found that joint employers—and more specifically staffing agencies—cannot be held liable for harassment and discrimination claims absent a showing that they participated in or were involved in the alleged wrongful conduct.

Plaintiffs ...

On April 16, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-51-20  (“Executive Order”), mandating supplemental paid sick leave for food sector workers at companies (i.e., “Hiring Entities”) with 500 or more employees. The Executive Order should help fill a gap for essential food sector workers left open under the federal Families First Coronavirus Relief Act ("FFCRA") (previously discussed here).

The Executive Order is effective immediately and remains effective during any statewide stay-at-home order. Like the recently enacted Supplemental paid ...

Generally, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to compensate their non-exempt employees for all time that they are required or allowed to perform work, regardless of where and when the work is done.  However, an exception exists for small amounts of time that are otherwise compensable work time but challenging to record, otherwise known as the de minimis doctrine.  Of course, the million-dollar question is how much time is considered de minimis.  Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule and the answer may differ under federal law and California law, or ...

We have written here about the efforts of several gig economy companies like DoorDash to avoid having to conduct – and pay for – thousands of individual arbitrations alleging that their workers had been misclassified.

As we have said before, companies that implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers must be careful what they ask for.  By using such agreements, they run the risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations, the cost of which could threaten the companies’ very existence.  (In California, we estimate that the arbitration costs ...

California generally requires that, when employees accrue vacation time during their employment, any accrued but unused vacation time must be paid out at the end of employment.  But so-called “unlimited” vacation policies have generally been understood to be a potential exception to that rule.  Such “unlimited” policies are more accurately referred to as “professional” or “reasonable use” vacation policies, where such policies do not provide for vacation to accrue.  Instead, employees under such policies are allowed to take an unspecified amount of paid time ...

Be careful what you ask for.

We have used that expression frequently when writing about recent federal court orders requiring DoorDash and Postmates to conduct thousands of individual arbitrations in California pursuant to the terms of their arbitration agreements with their drivers.

Thousands of individual arbitrations for which DoorDash and Postmates would have to pay many millions of dollars in arbitration fees alone.

The risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations attends any time an employer seeks the benefits of an arbitration agreement ...

Employers in California have been inundated with wage-hour class actions for the past two decades.  And, time and again, they have had to deal with employee-friendly decisions from the California Supreme Court.

Leave it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to step in and put an end to a proposed class action, finding that there were no “real-world consequences” from wage statements that had an error in the employer’s name.

In Lerna Mays v. Walmart Stores, Inc., the plaintiff brought suit under California Labor Code section 226 after receiving her final pay stub, which listed her ...

Recently, we wrote here about a federal court order requiring DoorDash to conduct more than 5,000 individual arbitrations under the terms of its mandatory arbitration agreements, with each arbitration to address claims that it had misclassified its drivers as independent contractors.

The order would fall in the category of “Be Careful What You Wish For.”  In seeking to avoid class or collective actions by having employees sign arbitration agreements with class action waivers, employers face the possibility of hundreds or thousands of individual arbitration for which they ...