Blog: The Labor & Employment Law Blog

At the request of the 9^th Circuit, the California Supreme Court recently clarified the definition of “hours worked” under the Labor Code. In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, the employees worked at a solar power facility, which was located on privately-owned land. To reach the actual worksite, employees had to enter onto private land, present a badge at a security gate (at which point a security guard might “peer” into their car or truck), and then drive an additional 10–15 minutes to access the employee parking lot. It was estimated that the security check could take between 5-30 minutes. This would happen again at the end of the day. Also, because there were endangered species present on the privately-owned land, there were restrictions employees were expected to follow while driving on the road, including not exceeding a certain speed limit, and refraining from honking horns or playing loud music. The Court was asked to answer two questions with respect to the definition of “hours worked” as discussed below.

Read More

In late March 2024, California Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill, AB 2751, that would recognize a right for employees in California to “disconnect” or ignore communications from their employer during certain non-work hours.  The Bill, in its current form, requires an employer to establish a workplace policy that will allow employees “the right to disconnect” from communications from their employer during non-working hours, except for emergencies and/or scheduling purposes.  The policy must define working vs. non-working hours and make clear that employees have the right to ignore communications from the employer during the policy’s specified non-working hours.  The proposed law also provides employees the right to file a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner if the employer engages in a pattern of violations of this new law. Finally, the proposed new law states that while violations may not be punished as a misdemeanor, the employer could be subject to a fine of not less than $100 as a result of a pattern of violation of the proposed new law.

Read More

If you’re a California employer, I hope the following is not news to you.  Pursuant to SB 553, most employers in California are required to put in place an effective Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (“WVPP”) by July 1, 2024. SB 553 added section 6401.9 to the California Labor Code to address the requirements for a compliant WVPP. 

Read More

In December 2023, the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”) filed the first-of-its-kind lawsuit under the California Fair Chance Act (“Act”) against Ralphs Grocery Store (“Ralphs”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Read More

California law requires private employers with 100 or more employees and/or 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors to annually report pay, demographic, and other workforce data to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). This year, the pay data reporting portal opened on February 1, 2024, and employers have until May 8, 2024 to submit their annual reports. To aid employers, the CRD released updated FAQs as well as new versions of the pay data reporting Excel templates, a user guide, and training slides. The FAQS are available here.

Read More

Last October, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1076 into law and it became effective as of January 1, 2024.  AB 1076 was the Legislature’s attempt to codify the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, which held that non-compete agreements in the employment context are unenforceable unless they fall within one of the three narrow statutory exceptions dealing primarily with the sale of business interests.  AB 1076 makes clear that requiring an employee to enter into a non-compete is unlawful and can subject the employer to penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.

Read More

Long-time blog readers and CEN watchers will recall that for the last several years, we have been watching several cases discussing whether Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims may be stricken as unmanageable. First, in the Fall of 2021, an appellate court determined that trial courts have inherent authority to strike or limit PAGA claims that could not otherwise be made manageable in order to “preserve judicial resources [and to] prevent trials from becoming excessively complex and time-consuming.” (See Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746).  Just a few months later, a different appellate court disagreed, concluding that while a court may limit the presentation of evidence to ensure a manageable trial, courts had no authority to strike or limit PAGA claims due to unmanageability. (See Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal. App. 5th 685.)

Read More

Most California employers have workplace violence and safety policies as part of their Employee Handbooks, but beginning next year, these policies will need to be updated to comply with new, robust requirements.  In addition, workplace violence incident logs will need to be maintained, and annual employee training will need to be provided.

Read More

The Legislature was busy again in 2023, and the Governor signed a number of employment-related bills. This blog post is not intended to discuss the details of every employment bill that was signed into law. Instead, below is a list of certain bills employers should be aware of, and we invite you to join Weintraub Tobin’s FREE “Year in Review” seminar series on January 10, 2024 and January 17, 2024 where some of the bills, and other employment law developments, will be discussed. Come join the experienced team of employment attorneys at Weintraub Tobin and learn about your new compliance obligations. We look forward to seeing you.

Read More