Labor and Employment

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

On September 1, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 699 into law, which will bolster California’s prohibition of non-compete agreements.

The prohibition of non-compete agreements is not new news. Non-compete agreements were not enforceable prior to SB 699 being signed into law under California Business and Professions Code section 16600. The Code section explains how every contract restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is void, except under limited statutory exceptions. SB 699, which will be codified as Business and Professions Code section 16600.5 and go into effect on January 1, 2024, reiterates existing law and extends the reach of California’s restriction on non-compete agreements. The new law:

Read More

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision in Stericycle, Inc., in which they adopted new rules for evaluating whether the policies related to employee conduct in employee handbooks violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

Read More

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court, in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., addressed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022). The much-anticipated Adolph decision, addresses the question of whether an “aggrieved employee,” who has been compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims (i.e. Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in an individual capacity), loses standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims (i.e. Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by other employees) in court. 

Read More

If you’ve been reading or watching the news in recent months, you have surely seen a large amount of press on various states and municipalities introducing laws to restrict certain rights of those in the LGTBQ+ community. According to a CCN report a few weeks ago, American Civil Liberties Union data reveals that state legislatures across the country have introduced a combined 417 anti-LGBTQ bills in roughly the first quarter of 2023 – a new record and twice the number of such bills introduced in all of last year. (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/us/hrc-lgbtq-emergency-declared/index.html)

Read More

Our prior blog, “New Year, New Minimum Wage,” discussed local minimum wage changes effective January 1^st in California and noted certain expected increases in July 1^st. The July 1^st increases have now been confirmed.

Read More

Almost exactly one year ago, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Gustavo Naranjo v Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (“Naranjo”), reviewing a decision by the Second Appellate District (the “Appellate Court”) in 2019. As we discussed in our California Employment News episode at that time (available here on YouTube, or here on our podcast) and here on our blog, the Supreme Court’s decision opened the flood-gates for employees to recover waiting-time and wage statement penalties whenever meal or rest period premiums went unpaid. This ruling immediately hyper-inflating the value of many wage and hour class actions across the state. On remand, the Appellate Court halted this inflation in some instances by clarifying that such penalties are not available to a class of employees where the employer has a good faith dispute that the premiums were due.

Read More