Total Articles: 14
Fisher Phillips • February 21, 2018
As we discussed back in January, sexual harassment appears to be the hot topic for the California State Legislature’s 2018 session. This is certainly not a surprise, as issues related to sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement have dominated discussion across all industries and sectors of business, entertainment, sports, and politics.
Ogletree Deakins • October 19, 2017
On October 15, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 396, a new law that requires employers in California with 50 or more employees to provide training on policies that prohibit harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. This training is to be provided as a component of the already-required two-hour sexual harassment training provided to supervisory employees once every two years and within six months of an employee’s assumption of a supervisory position.
Ogletree Deakins • October 19, 2017
On October 15, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 396 into law. California employers with 50 or more employees currently must provide two hours of sexual harassment training for supervisors every two years. This legislation expands the subjects that the mandatory supervisor training must include.
Fisher Phillips • June 30, 2017
As introduced, Senate Bill 396 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) dealt with medical residence training programs. However, recently the contents of the bill were stripped out and replaced with new and unrelated language (a procedure referred to as a “gut and amend” in legislative lingo). The new language proposes to expand California employers’ obligations regarding sexual harassment training.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • April 22, 2016
New California Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations that went into effect April 1, 2016, requiring employers to have a discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and prevention policy also set new benchmarks for mandatory sexual harassment training procedures.
Ogletree Deakins • March 29, 2016
The California Office of Administrative Law recently approved regulations drafted by the California Fair Employment and Housing Council. These new regulations, covering the entire gamut of employment law topics within the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), will go into effect on April 1, 2016.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • March 11, 2016
California's Fair Employment and Housing Council ("FEHC") has adopted new regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") that take effect April 1. For the most part, the new regulations reflect recent changes in the law (e.g. making clear that FEHA protects interns and volunteers and persons providing services pursuant to a contract). However, the new regulations contain an important new substantive requirement that employers adopt a written discrimination, harassment, and retaliation prevention policy that meets specified requirements. According to the FEHC, this new policy requirement is in furtherance of employers' obligation to prevent (and not just correct) discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, and is in addition to employers' existing obligation to provide its workforce with a copy of the DFEH brochure on sexual harassment (DFEH-185) and/or an alternative anti-harassment policy that complies with Government Code section 12950.
Fisher Phillips • March 10, 2016
California employers will need to comply with a new set of regulations from California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council that go into effect April 1, 2016. Among other things, these regulations require employers with five or more employees to have a written policy against unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace, and the regulations require the policies to meet certain requirements.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 08, 2016
New California regulations declaring that “[e]mployers have an affirmative duty to create a workplace environment that is free from employment practices prohibited by” the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and that “[e]mployers have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct discriminatory and harassing conduct” will go into effect on April 1, 2016.
Ogletree Deakins • May 04, 2015
Dawson v. Country Club of Rancho Bernardo, No. D064654 (March 23, 2015): In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal reversed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer, Country Club of Rancho Bernardo, in a food and beverage manager’s sexual harassment case against the Club and her supervisor. This case serves as a reminder for employers to take sexual harassment complaints seriously, given that the failure to do so could have costly implications down the road.
Ogletree Deakins • October 20, 2014
On September 28, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he had signed SB967, the so-called Yes Means Yes bill into law.
Ogletree Deakins • August 14, 2013
On August 12, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 292 which amends section 12940 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill addresses the decision in Kelley v. Conoco Companies and clarifies that an individual who sues for sexual harassment under state law need not prove that the sexually harassing conduct was motivated by sexual desire.
Ogletree Deakins • July 16, 2013
On July 12, 2013, Governor Dannel Malloy vetoed legislation that would have limited the use of non-compete agreements in Connecticut (which we covered in a recent issue of the Connecticut eAuthority). The bill would have imposed certain requirements on the use of non-compete agreements in the context of mergers and acquisitions. Using his veto authority, Governor Malloy sent the law back to the state’s General Assembly, citing its potential to produce legal uncertainty and ambiguity due to undefined and unclear terms.
Ogletree Deakins • February 08, 2008
A state appellate court in California recently reversed a $1.4 million jury verdict in favor of an employee who claimed that she and others were spanked during company sales meetings. According to the California Court of Appeal, since the jury was not instructed that to prevail the employee had to show that the harassment occurred because she was female, the verdict could not stand. Orlando v. Alarm One, Inc., No. F050759, F051470, California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (January 14, 2008).