Welcome to the Weintraub Tobin Resources Page

Browse below for news, legal insights, information on presentations and events, and other resources from the Weintraub Tobin legal team.


California Supreme Court Determines PAGA Cases May Not be Dismissed Due to Issues of Manageability

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.)

California Employers Will Need to Create Workplace Violence Prevention Plans By July 2024

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.

2023 Was Another Busy Year in the Legislature – New Employment Law Legislation

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.

California Employers, Forget About Non-Compete Agreements for Your Employees!

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:

CA Supreme Court Holds Compelling Arbitration of Individual PAGA Claim Does Not Strip Standing to Litigate Representative Claims

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. 

Outbreak: Redefined by the California Department of Public Health

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has updated its definition of an “outbreak.”

As previously discussed in our January 25, 2023 blog post, the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) were replaced with the COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Regulations, which rely on the CDPH definition of “outbreak.” The Non-Emergency Regulations, in effect until February 3, 2025, require employers to ensure employees are protected in the workplace from COVID-19, including during an outbreak.

HAPPY PRIDE MONTH! Now More Than Ever Is A Good Time To Remind Folks That LGTBQ+ Employees Have Rights Under CA Employment Law

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)

Safe Harbor from Class-Based Waiting Time and Wage Statement Penalties for Employers with “Good Faith Disputes” That Meal or Rest Period Premiums Were Owed — the Latest Chapter in the Naranjo Saga

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.