A recent Ninth Circuit panel held that Hyatt employees who were “laid off” in March 2020 were entitled to payment of their accrued vacation time immediately, even though the employees were not
On October 1, 2023, changes to the Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations that govern how employers can use information about criminal history in employment decisions go into effect, modifying California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 11017.1. These revised regulations add to the already long list of procedures that must be followed in California when using criminal history as a basis for rejecting an applicant or taking other adverse actions against an applicant or employee. An overview of the requirements can be found here.
California employers should be extremely cautious about timely paying arbitration fees or could pay the price – waiving their right to arbitrate and having to proceed in court.
The California Legislature and courts have long been hostile to arbitration agreements. In 2019, the California Legislature amended the California Arbitration Act to include a provision that if the party that drafted an arbitration agreement (almost always the employer) fails to pay the fees or costs required to continue the arbitration proceeding “within 30 days after the due date” the drafting party “is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration and waives its right to compel the employee” to proceed with arbitration. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. 1281.98(a)(1)). Under the Act, that means that when the employer “breaches the agreement” by failing to make payments on time, the employee may withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in court.
A recent California Appellate Court decision shows just how strictly courts may construe the requirement that fees be paid “within 30 days after the due date”. In Doe v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, (First App. Dist., Div. 3, 9/8/23), the court found that “paid” within 30 days after the due date meant “received by the arbitrator” within 30 days after the due date. (emphasis in original). In Doe, September 1, 2022, was the “due date”, so the fees had to be paid by October 3rd. The employer put a check for the fees in the mail on Friday, September 30th for the full amount due that Monday. However, the payment was not received until October 5th, two days after the 30-day period expired. The court reasoned that “the proverbial check in the mail” does not constitute payment, and the fees are not considered “paid” under the statute until they are received by the arbitrator.
After multiple delays, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) EEO-1 filing deadline is locked on December 5, 2023 (for data pertaining to 2022). All private sector employers with 100 or more employees, and covered federal contractors with 50 or more employees, need to file this annual EEO-1 report requiring submission of employees’ demographic data.
The EEO-1 Component 1 requires disclosure of workforce demographic data, including protected categories such as sex, race, and ethnicity. Component 2 requires further detail such as hours worked, and certain pay information (that CDF previously described that can be found here).
Join us on September 26 for a comprehensive webinar hosted by CDF as we delve into the crucial subject of arbitrating PAGA claims, exploring its implications following the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Adolph v. Uber. Partners Corey Cabral, Chair of CDF’s PAGA Litigation Practice, and Sander van der Heide, will guide attendees through the intricacies of this decision, offering invaluable insights and strategies that California employers need to stay informed and compliant with evolving labor laws.
In this webinar, you can expect:
In-Depth Analysis: Gain a thorough understanding of the Adolph v. Uber ruling and its far-reaching consequences for PAGA claims arbitration, including the impact on class action waivers.
Practical Guidance: Learn best practices for navigating PAGA claims within the context of the Adolph decision, including strategies for minimizing legal risks.
Legal Perspective: Hear directly from our seasoned attorneys who will provide real-world examples and case studies to illustrate the application of Adolph in different employment scenarios.
Interactive Q&A: Get your specific questions answered by our legal team during the live Q&A session.
Key Takeaways: Discover why California employers should pay close attention to the Adolph v. Uber decision and how it affects their labor law compliance strategies.
Don’t miss out on this opportunity to stay ahead of the curve in understanding the latest developments in PAGA claims arbitration and the broader implications for your business. Join us on September 26 and ensure your organization reduces its potential litigation risk, cost, and exposure from PAGA claims.
CA MCLE, SHRM and HRCI credit pending.
Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to tackle the new field of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). As technology develops and changes,
For over two decades, California law concluded non-compete agreements are not enforceable in the context of employment, Edwards v. Anderson, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008) and even created a public policy claim against employers assisting the enforcement of out-of-state non-compete
California is likely to become the first state to explicitly ban caste-based discrimination in the context of employment, housing, and public schools. SB 403 seeks to amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), along with other statutes, by explicitly
As the economy changes, corporate restructures, mergers and acquisitions are on the rise. There is a plethora of employment-related issues that should be heavily vetted in advance of a corporate transaction as the target company’s employment-related obligations and liabilities may,
A recent unanimous California Supreme Court decision makes clear that when third-party entities provide services to employers with California applicants and/or employees, they may risk being held liable under the FEHA.
Employer Liability Under FEHA
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits
Cal/OSHA has long been able to cite employers for violating stringent outdoor heat illness regulations, that apply to all “outdoor places of employment.” As a consequence, indoor work spaces subjected to high heat conditions have largely been untouched by Cal/OSHA, or held to much looser standards.
That is all about to change with Cal/OSHA’s new indoor heat illness regulation, which is positioned to be approved in the coming weeks. With both heat illness regulations, Cal/OSHA will have full authority to enforce heat-illness standards across all workplace environments, and all California workers will be covered by either the indoor or outdoor standard.
IRVINE, Calif., August 17, 2023 – CDF Labor Law LLP (CDF), a California preeminent labor and employment law firm representing employers, proudly announces the inclusion of 22 attorneys in the Best Lawyers in America© and the “Ones to Watch” lists for 2024 for various employment-related practice areas from metropolitan areas throughout California.
This year’s list of CDF attorneys includes nine newly listed lawyers, which is an 8% increase over last year. In addition, CDF Partner Leigh Ann White was named by Best Lawyers as the 2024 “Lawyer of the Year” in Class Actions – Defense, in Irvine, California for the second time.
Lawyers on the Best Lawyers in America list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in good standing.
Recent developments raise questions about post-pandemic voluntary work-from-home agreements and reimbursements for work-at-home expenses. This is our monthly blog providing California employers with wage and hour compliance tips and best practices.
When the pandemic initially hit, most California employers scrambled to continue operations while complying with mandatory stay-at-home orders. Many employers acted quickly to set up employees to work from home and may have overlooked whether that triggered the duty to reimburse for certain business expenses associated with working from home, i.e., internet usage, cell phone usage, personal computer usage, etc. For some employers, it may have been unclear whether the employer was required to pay expenses employees may have incurred by working at home as a result of Governor Newsom’s stay-at-home order. Was the cause the government or was the employer the cause? Recently, the California Court of Appeal unequivocally answered the question – the employer. More specifically, the employees’ performance of work duties for the employer. In Thai v. International Business Machines Corporation, relying on statutory language alone, the Court determined that an employer is required to reimburse an employee “for all necessary expenditures …incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” The Court determined that the Governor was not an intervening cause, excusing reimbursement, based on the stay-at-home order. The Court reasoned that what matters is whether an employee incurs expenses “in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer.” The reimbursement statute does not state that the employer must reimburse only for expenses directly caused by the employer. This is an important distinction. The obligation to reimburse turns on whether expenses were incurred due to the performance of the employee’s duties as well as other factors.
California has gone to great lengths to limit independent contractor relationships and recently, the City of Los Angeles, created additional hurdles to the hiring and use of independent contractors or freelance workers.
A private class-action complaint claimed that the department store, Saks, and several luxury brands (including Louis Vuitton, Loro Piana, Prada, Brunello and Fendi) violated Federal Antitrust laws when they agreed that each of the luxury brand defendants would not hire or solicit to hire Saks’s employees within the six months after the employees left employment at Saks without written approval from Saks. Hayes v. Saks Incorporated, et al., USDC ED NY No. 1:20-cv-00833. The agreements were reached through negotiations between the department store and the luxury brands for the placement and sale of the luxury brands’ goods in Saks department stores.
The trial court granted defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and concluded that the complaint failed to allege an unreasonable restraint of trade and that any alleged restraint was ancillary to a legitimate collaborative business purpose.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on several grounds. California and 20 other states filed an Amicus Curiae brief supporting plaintiffs’ appeal asserting that each state “has a keen interest in preventing such anticompetitive harms to labor markets and to workers….” Further, California and the other states asserted that the trial court’s refusal to recognize that the no-hire agreements were per se illegal which threatened each state’s ability to protect their own labor markets from unfair trade practices. California and its ally states asserted that the no-hire agreements constituted illegal anti-competitive no-poach agreements with the effect of depressing wages, benefit packages and limiting employee mobility. The Department of Justice, too, filed an Amicus Curiae brief supporting the workers.
While the legal issues on appeal remain under review, all employers should be aware that California, the Department of Justice and many other states continue to bring, monitor and police antitrust claims based on no-poach agreements and, typically side with employees making such claims. Before your company enters into an agreement with any other business restricting employees’ mobility of employment, consult with the author of this blog or your favorite CDF attorney to limit or eliminate potential antitrust exposure.