Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 17, 2020
February is the month where romance blossoms – which means it is a great time for employers to review their policies regarding employee fraternization and intracompany relationships.
Fisher Phillips • February 17, 2020
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court just held that the time spent by employees waiting for and undergoing security checks of bags and other personal items is compensable time under California law, even when the policy only applies to employees who choose to bring personal items to work. However, in a bit of good news for employers, the court left some wiggle room rather than craft a bright-line test by providing a multi-factor test as to whether “onsite employer-controlled activities” must be compensated as “hours worked.”
FordHarrison LLP • February 17, 2020
Introduction: The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which took effect earlier this year, has left many employers in the Golden State scrambling to comply with privacy regulations concerning the collection and use of personal data relating to consumers. On February 10, 2020, the California Attorney General’s office released an updated version of its proposed regulations, which for the first time provided additional guidance on the notice obligations necessary in the employment context. The comment period for these proposed changes has been extended to February 25, 2020. This article addresses the recent changes incorporated into the CCPA as they concern employees.
Ogletree Deakins • February 13, 2020
The Supreme Court of California recently agreed to review the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1239 (2019), as limited to the following question:
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 12, 2020
Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”), feared by some to be the death of independent contractor relationships in California, faces a growing number of lawsuits. Organizations representing three industries have filed lawsuits challenging the bill on constitutional grounds. In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs have sought a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of the bill until the trial court makes a final decision. These efforts have met with mixed success.
Ogletree Deakins • February 11, 2020
As any employer with employees in California knows, there are some major differences between leaves of absence under federal law and under California law. In this podcast, Karen Tynan and Jill Schubert discuss the types of leaves afforded under California law and the similarities and differences with federal law, as well as best practices for recordkeeping and documentation.
Fisher Phillips • February 11, 2020
California employers breathed a bit easier once a federal judge pressed the indefinite pause button on the newly enacted law aimed at preventing employers from utilizing mandatory arbitration agreements. Now, a few weeks later, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued an order fully explaining her reasons for granting the preliminary injunction that blocked AB 51. The 36-page order, issued on February 7, said that that the law not only would have placed arbitration agreements on unequal footing with other contracts, but it would have interfered with the stated objectives of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 10, 2020
On January 31, 2020, the district court in Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. v. Becerra, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-2456, granted the request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of California (the State) from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) against arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). A week later, on February 7, 2020, the court issued its written order detailing the court’s reasoning for granting the preliminary injunction.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 10, 2020
Many businesses and their service providers have been awaiting final guidance from the California Attorney General concerning the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • February 10, 2020
On February 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order supporting its injunction of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2020.1 In its order, the court expressly noted that it was likely that opponents of the bill would succeed on their argument that AB 51 was invalid insofar as it is preempted by federal law.