Welcome to the Weintraub Resources section. Here, you can find our Blogs, Videos, and Podcasts, in which Weintraub attorneys regularly provide insights and updates on legal developments. You can also find upcoming Weintraub Events, as well as firm and client News.


FTC Rule Ruled Unenforceable Nationwide

If you have been following our podcast California Employment News, you know that the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule that would act as a comprehensive ban on non-compete agreements. The ban would have taken effect next month, and would have invalidated non-compete provisions in millions of existing agreements and would have precluded non-compete provisions in future agreements with employees, independent contractors, volunteers and other workers.  It would have preempted the laws of the 46 states that already regulate noncompete. In a victory for employers and business owners nationwide who rely on some form of non-competition provision to protect their IP, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the FTC rule in its ruling on August 20, 2024.

The CA Legislature Passes Another Law Requiring that Employers Advise Employees that They Have the Right to Seek Legal Counsel

In recent years, California employers have seen legislation requiring that they advise their employees in certain situations about their right to consult with legal counsel. For example, in 2021 Senate Bill 331 (“Silenced No More Act”) amended section 1001 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to require, among other things, that a severance and release agreement contain a provision notifying the employee or former employee that they have the right to consult an attorney regarding the agreement. This notification under California law is separate and apart from the requirements under the federal Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (as part of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) which also provides for such notice for employees over the age of 40.

PAGA Reform: Key Takeaways for California Employers

On July 1, 2024 Governor Newsom signed SB-92 and AB-2288 into law, which instituted sweeping reforms to California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). PAGA was passed 20 years ago to provide a private mechanism for employees to pursue claims on behalf of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) against employers for alleged Labor Code violations. PAGA was meant to improve compensation for and benefit workers in California, but in practice has largely benefitted plaintiffs’ attorneys, which was why reforms were necessary.

A California Workplace Checklist for Pride Month

It’s Pride month: rainbow flags are flying, social media avatars are changing, and parade planning is in full swing. In addition to celebrations, California businesses can use this important month to review their practices and policies to ensure an inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ employees. Although creating a supportive work environment is a kind and empathetic thing to do, it’s also the law. More about that later, but first: a checklist. Not all of the following are mandatory requirements; some suggestions may be aspirational. However, reviewing these options is an excellent place to start to ensure that we all respect the rights of our LGBTQ+ employees and comply with the law.

California’s Minimum Wage Law for Healthcare Workers May Be Delayed

In October 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 525 (“SB 525”), which establishes minimum wage schedules for “covered health care employees” depending on the type of facilities in which they work, and raises the minimum wage for many healthcare facilities to $21 per hour. SB 525 would have raised the minimum wage on June 1, 2024 for many of these facilities. However, on Monday, May 20, 2024, State Senator Mara Elana Durazo, the bill’s author, submitted paperwork for legislation that would delay the increase.  Senate Bill No. 828 (“SB 828”) moves the start date of the health care minimum wage law by one month to July 1, 2024.

Ninth Circuit Holds that Non-Individual PAGA Claims Cannot be Compelled to Arbitration Even When the Agreement Only Waives Class or Collective Actions

On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macys West Stores, Inc.  In that case, Diaz brought California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims against her former employer.  The district court compelled both Plaintiff’s individual and non-individual PAGA claims to arbitration, reasoning that the arbitration agreement’s broad language must be interpreted to encompass both types of claims.  Macy’s appealed.