Labor and Employment

On April 7, 2025, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox was again reinstated after initially being fired by President Trump in a short email on January 27, 2025, stating that he had lost confidence in Wilcox’s ability to lead the Board.  Trump’s firing of Wilcox left the Board without a three-member quorum.  The April 7^th decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is just the latest development in this saga, which is primed for Supreme Court review.

Read More

Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”) commonly referred to as the “Anti-DEI Order” (hereinafter simply referred to as the “Ex. Order”). Among other things, the Ex. Order directs federal agencies “to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” However, as pointed out by many legal commentators and at least one federal district court, the Ex. Order conspicuously does not define what constitutes an “illegal DEI preference or program.” 

Read More

Last year, we reported on the reforms to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) that Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on July 1, 2024.  The reform legislation was pushed through to avoid a ballot vote on a measure seeking to repeal PAGA entirely in the 2024 election.  The legislation was aimed at providing some relief to employers from the flood of meritless PAGA claims and provide mechanisms for early resolution.  The legislation also gave the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) the resources and ability to expedite hiring and to fill vacancies in the CA Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) which is the division responsible for PAGA administration and oversight. While the reforms did not appear deter the “serial filer” firms from filing a record number of cases (9,463 PAGA notices were filed in calendar year 2024 – a jump from 8,100 the prior year), we are extremely pleased to report that the LWDA and its new hires, have begun taking a much more active role in these cases at an early stage and cracking down on the worst abusers of the PAGA statutes.

Read More

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