Labor and Employment

This is a follow-up to our recent blog post regarding Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”) and its prohibition on an employer’s right to take adverse action against an employee who refuses to attend meetings related to “political matters” or “religious matters.” (See post here).  As we indicated in the blog, it was anticipated that SB 399 would be challenged in the courts. Sure enough! 

Read More

If you followed California’s 2024 Legislative term, you know that Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”) was passed and signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 27, 2024.  For the most part, SB 399 has been described as a new “captive audience” law that prevents most, but not all, employers from taking any adverse action against an employee who declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting in which the employer or its agents discuss “political matters” or “religious matters.” The law came about during a time of great political division in the US, and was aimed at protecting an employee’s right to hold their own political and religious views, and be free of intimidation by their employer.

Read More

Under California law, employers are prohibited from making, adopting, or enforcing policies that prevent an employee from disclosing violations of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal regulation to, among others, a government or law enforcement agency.  The law also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who makes such a disclosure.

Read More

In a recent presentation at the Central Valley Business Expo, Weintraub shareholder Lukas Clary highlighted key changes in California employment law that employers need to be aware of. The discussion covered critical legal updates, including new workplace violence prevention and indoor heat exposure requirements, as well as expanded definitions of harassment and retaliation and newly enacted legislation impacting employer practices.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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