With the usual flurry of activity at the end of the legislative session, California has enacted a slew of bills with labor and employment ramifications.¹ Closing out his first year in office, Governor Gavin Newsom signed more than 40 such bills on a wide variety of topics, ranging from antidiscrimination and workplace safety measures to the much-debated worker classification bill (AB 5) codifying the ABC test from last year’s Dynamex case.

Philip Gordon suggests steps that employers should take in response to the privacy act.

SHRM Online

View Article 

Happy New Year! As we turn the calendar to 2019, employers across the country are taking stock of recently-enacted workplace regulations on a wide variety of topics.¹

Employers in the Golden State, in particular, have a lot to juggle: new governor, new legislative session, and dozens of new labor and employment laws taking effect as of January 1.² These statutes touch on numerous issues, ranging from lactation accommodation to meal breaks for certain commercial drivers.³

Effective January 1, 2019, California SB 1343 greatly expanded Golden State employers' anti-harassment training requirements. The law not only extends coverage to employers with more than five employees, but it also mandates that employers provide anti-harassment training to all employees – not just supervisors – every two years. But what if an employer provided this training in 2018? Can the next training cycle wait until 2020? No, according to recent guidance from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

Last year, California enacted SB 1343,¹ amending California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to expand employers' sexual harassment training requirements.  Previously, employers with 50 or more employees had to provide their supervisory personnel with two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years.

Bruce Sarchet, of Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, and Marissa Dragoo with the Littler Learning Group, take a look at a new type of workplace training – bystander intervention training – that is now encouraged for California employers. This optional training teaches employees how to evaluate and respond to problematic behaviors in the workplace, empowering them to interrupt difficult situations, such as sexual harassment.
 

On August 30, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 778, revising mandatory anti-harassment training deadlines, and resolving confusion about retraining requirements for certain employees who already received training in 2018 or 2019.

Helene Wasserman, Los Angeles-based Littler Shareholder and Trial Practice Group Co-Chair, reflects on some good, bad, and ugly impacts of the #MeToo movement since its inception, including recent legislative developments affecting California employers in particular. Discussing training, arbitration agreements, and the extended statute of limitations for FEHA claims with Littler Learning Group’s Marissa Dragoo, Helene provides insights and guidance for California employers as we move into the third year of the cemented #MeToo movement.
 

On February 26, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tricoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, No. S273368 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2024). For employers, the most important takeaway from this case is that the court held a litigant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial can be conclusive if a party seeking reversal of the waiver cannot demonstrate it caused prejudice to the party. The decision makes it more difficult for a party to convince a court to let it back out of a jury trial waiver in a civil case.

Background

In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer that reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement has a viable defense to a claim for penalties under the California wage statement statute.

Background

What do you get when you combine a business-backed ballot initiative, the state legislature and governor’s office, and labor organizations? A deal. California style.

Marlene Muraco, Angela Rafoth and Emily Mertes discuss reforms to California's Private Attorneys General Act that address challenges and ambiguities faced by both courts and employers in the 20-year-old law.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.)

Just about a year ago, in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic activity in many sectors went from red hot to nearly frozen, seemingly overnight.  The hospitality industry was particularly hard hit, as business and leisure travel evaporated.  Many businesses were forced to lay off workers, and California’s unemployment soared.

Over the past few years, cities have started to implement workplace regulation, an area previously reserved to federal and state governments.  The hotel industry, which often is one of the primary drivers of a local economy, has been a particular focus.

California is at it again – adopting a host of new labor and employment laws that will further regulate and complicate business operations in the Golden State.  Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute has been tracking these bills as they worked their way through the legislature and been signed into law by Governor Newsom.  The new California laws are summarized briefly below.  Also, please join us at our annual webinar on October 19, 2022, in wh

In 2019, California adopted several laws that restricted “non-disclosure" provisions in employment-related agreements.  Those laws, passed in the wake of the “me too” movement, limited non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements for lawsuits and administrative agency charges involving allegations of sexual harassment.¹  They also limited the use of non-disclosure provisions in exchange for a raise or a bonus, or as a co

Michael Lotito weighs in on a New York measure that would establish a policy-making council that would set rules on pay, safety and working conditions "as reasonably necessary" to protect worker welfare.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Denise Visconti offers tips to help employers navigate California’s SB 1162, which will require employers to disclose median and mean hourly rates and pay information on contractors, starting in May 2023.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Joy Rosenquist offers employers tips to manage compliance challenges that may arise from California’s new regulations that are designed to increase pay transparency.

WorldatWork

View

Last fall, California enacted Senate Bill 525, which substantially raises the base minimum wage for health care workers over time to $25 per hour.  The first incremental increase above the general state minimum wage was scheduled to occur on June 1, 2024.  However, there were several delays and amendments to the law due to its impact on the California budget.  After the last delay in late June, health care employers did not have a clear answer t

In Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc.,¹ the California Supreme Court rejected claims that an incentive plan that conditioned the earning of restricted stock based on continued service was unlawful where the employee voluntarily elected to participate in the plan, and the employee quit before the date on which the incentive was earned. The plan was lawful even though the incentive plan was funded from wages that the employee would have otherwise received in cash.

Joy Rosenquist talks about some of the 30 new California laws she thinks are particularly significant for employers, including rules addressing pay transparency and off-duty cannabis use.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.) 

Michael Lotito and Bruce Sarchet share their thoughts on SB 93, a new California law that requires some employers in the hospitality industry to prioritize recalling workers who were laid off due to COVID-19.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that California Assembly Bill 979—a bill designed to increase diversity and improve the persistently low number of underrepresented groups on corporate boards—violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and was therefore unenforceable. In its ruling, the court acknowledged the pitfalls of homogeneity in business and communities, but it cautioned against quotas and specific number requirements.

At the November 5, 2024 election, California voters will determine the fate of Proposition 32, which proposes to increase the state minimum wage and provide for automatic future adjustments tied to inflation.

On June 29, 2024, Governor Newsom signed into law an amendment to California Code 1770, clarifying the scope of SB 478. Under SB 478 and previously published guidance from the attorney general, California restaurants were effectively prohibited from charging service fees or other surcharges, which many restaurants have implemented to offset rising costs, unless the amount of the service fee was specifically identified as part of the listed prices.

Background check industry groups have mounted a full-court press to remedy the recent slowdown in criminal record searches in California state courts caused by last year’s court of appeal decision in All of Us or None v.

Two noteworthy developments have occurred since the California Fair Employment & Housing Council released draft revisions to the state’s employment non-discrimination laws on March 15, 2022 that relate to the nascent law surrounding the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other data-driven statistical processes to automate decision-making in the employment context.  

California state and local governmental bodies—our state legislature, and counties and cities—were active again this year in their efforts to regulate the workplace. Littler Workplace Policy Institute has been tracking these bills as they worked their way through the legislature. Some were signed into law by Governor Newsom earlier this year and have already gone into effect.

A May 2021 court decision in California, All of Us or None v.