As we start April 2022, here are five new California employment law developments that California employers need to know about:
1. Court rules California’s law requiring corporate board diversity is unconstitutional.
California passed AB 979 which enacted Corporations Code section 301.4 in 2020. The law requires corporations with their principal executive offices located in California
On December 15, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. At issue in this case is whether a California employer may enter into a voluntary agreement with an employee whereby the employee agrees to only bring his or her individual claims in an arbitration proceeding and not
In 2019, California enacted AB 51, making it an unlawful employment practice for employers to require applicants or employees, as a condition of employment, to waive any right, forum, or procedure relating to a Labor Code or FEHA claim. The short version of this word salad is that employers couldn’t mandate arbitration agreements. However, a
It is critical for California employers to properly calculate the regular rate of pay for an employee in order to pay the appropriate overtime pay and for premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks. Here are five issues employers must be aware of regarding calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay:
1. Employers must
The Labor Code requires that an employer who “fails to provide a meal or rest or recovery period . . . shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.” What does “regular rate
“Arrows of neon and flashing marquees out on Main Street / Chicago, New York, Detroit and it’s all on the same street.” (Truckin’, the 1970 song by the Grateful Dead.)
Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that California’s meal and rest break rules were unenforceable as to
The California supreme court provided further guidance on employer obligations to provide meal breaks as required under the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. In Donohue v. AMN Services LLC, the California supreme court held that employers may not use time rounding policies in context of meal periods, and time records for meal periods
Late last year, Cal/OSHA implemented Emergency Temporary Standards that imposed dramatic new testing, training, and recordkeeping requirements related to COVID-19 exposure in the workplace. Most controversial of these new requirements was a mandate that employers “continue and maintain an employee’s earnings, seniority, and all other employee rights and benefits” for employees excluded from the workplace
On December 1, new Cal/OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) went into effect, creating a host of new COVID-19 obligations for employers. Included in the ETS regulations are specific testing procedures, training and prevention protocols, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The ETS regulations include several controversial provisions, including stringent 14-day exclusion requirements for asymptomatic close
08/13/2020 UPDATE:
On the date of the initial publication of this article, the Labor Commissioner’s lawsuits against ride-sharing behemoths Uber and Lyft, were in the early stages. But, the Labor Commissioner’s office is not the only entity seeking relief from the court against Uber and Lyft. Back on May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General