The rapid onset of the coronavirus crisis stripped many employers of the opportunity to prepare an orderly retreat from the physical workplace. Following the government-imposed stay-in-place orders, employers shifted their...more
The rapid onset of the coronavirus crisis stripped many employers of the opportunity to prepare an orderly retreat from the physical workplace. Following the government-imposed stay-in-place orders, employers shifted their...more
The CDC and other governmental agencies have been critical in guiding employers with recommended protocols for the physical health and safety of employees and other individuals in our workplaces. While an employee’s physical...more
California AB 51’s ban on mandatory employment arbitration remains stayed for now. AB 51 was passed in fall 2019 and essentially prohibits employers from requiring an applicant or employee to consent to mandatory arbitration...more
1/13/2020
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
FEHA ,
Labor Code ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Preemption ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
State Labor Laws ,
TRO
AB 5’s elimination of independent contracting as we know it in California will have significant legal consequences for businesses doing business in California. While we believe board directors will escape its reach,...more
The California Consumer Privacy Act becomes effective on January 1, 2020 with an amendment that impacts California employers. Covered businesses should, of course, already be in the process of preparing CCPA privacy notices...more
10/30/2019
/ California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) ,
Consumer Privacy Rights ,
Cybersecurity ,
Data Collection ,
Data Protection ,
Employee Privacy Rights ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Governor Newsom ,
Opt-Outs ,
Personally Identifiable Information ,
Privacy Policy ,
Right to Delete
California Governor Gavin Newsom just signed AB 51 into law, which means that effective January 1, 2010, employers will (purportedly) be prohibited from requiring employees to consent to mandatory arbitration of employment...more
10/28/2019
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Breach of Contract ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
FEHA ,
Governor Newsom ,
Labor Code ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
New Legislation ,
State Labor Laws
The California legislature has now passed AB 5 and, if Governor Gavin Newsom signs the bill into law as expected, California will effectively ban nearly all categories of independent contractors – not just gig economy...more
9/13/2019
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Gig Economy ,
Governor Newsom ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
This week, the California Supreme Court rejected the old “totality of circumstances” test to determine if a worker was properly classified as an independent contractor in favor of a new “ABC test” under which employers will...more
Resolution #1: Don’t let your Workplace be the Next Headline: Review and Refresh your Non-Harassment Policies and Training.
Welcome (almost) to the New Year: a time of renewal, a fresh start, a clean slate, and a time to...more
Sounds like something our favorite attorney Bob Loblaw would be part of. In reality, the PAGA SAGA (for those of you without California employees) relates to PAGA, the acronym for California’s Private Attorneys’ General Act,...more
8/15/2017
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Class Action ,
Discovery ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Labor Code ,
Limited Jurisdictional Discovery ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
Summertime is vacation time. And vacation time means headaches for employers who engage in vacation float. Vacation “float” is the practice of advancing vacation to employees before they actually accrue it under an employer’s...more
California’s new Ban the Box regulation became effective last week. Effective July 1, 2017, questions concerning an applicant or employee’s criminal convictions will now be subject to the new regulation... That regulation...more
7/6/2017
/ Adverse Impact ,
Background Checks ,
Ban the Box ,
Business Necessity ,
Criminal Background Checks ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Job Applicants ,
Local Ordinance ,
New Rules ,
State and Local Government
If you’ve been following my corporate divorce series, you are familiar with my view about who owns what at the end of the employment relationship, who pays what to whom, and even how to end the relationship. But I have yet to...more
We are often asked what, if anything, employers should tell an employee about the reasons for the employee’s termination, especially if the termination is abrupt.
We tell employers to tell the truth....more
Few of us can honestly say that our job never disappoints us and the same can probably be said of personal relationships. But how do you know when you are in a failed employment relationship and what do you do about it?...more
The California Fair Pay Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2016, prohibits employers from paying employees less than the rate paid to members of the opposite sex who perform “substantially similar” work. Although...more
10/8/2015
/ Anti-Pay Secrecy ,
Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
Confidentiality Policies ,
Employee Rights ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Equal Pay ,
Fair Pay Act ,
Gender Discrimination ,
Gender Equity ,
Gender-Based Pay Discrimination ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
New Legislation ,
Recordkeeping Requirements ,
Sex Discrimination ,
Substantially Similar ,
Training ,
Wage and Hour ,
Working Conditions
In my last article I promised to examine as part of my Corporate Divorce Series whether alimony (though the politically correct term these days is “spousal support”) is like unemployment (I’m pretty sure it is still...more
It turns out the answer to this question depends on the reason for the move and whether California law applies to the contract.
We all know that California is finicky when it comes to non-competes – so much so that...more
A recent Circuit Court case confirms that the term “non-inducement” means just that. In American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Graham, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against an insurance agent who, the jury...more
7/16/2015
/ Appeals ,
Breach of Contract ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Former Employee ,
Former Employer ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Inducement ,
Insurance Agents ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Restrictive Covenants
When it comes to California non-competes, you can never get enough clarity. And when that clarity comes from a Delaware Chancery Court, it adds a utility element that our corporate brethren appreciate....more
Those of you reading our Employee Mobility blog posts are familiar with California’s unique approach to non-compete agreements: they are, except in a few limited circumstances, unenforceable in the Golden State. And that...more
Those of you who joined us for our November 13 webinar on “Post-Employment Solicitation of Customers & Employees in the Social Media Age” will be interested in a recent social media-related non-solicitation case from...more
A federal district court in Washington has confirmed that an employer’s relationship with the cows that its employees serviced is insufficient to establish a legitimate protectable interest to enforce a non-compete....more
In a pair of recent decisions, two courts interpreting California’s quirky non-compete law confirm that employee non-recruitment covenants in California are enforceable – but only if those covenants are necessary to prevent...more