The MOU
On August 28, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board
Captive Audience Meetings Now Banned By State Law in California
By: Captive Audience Meetings Now Banned By State Law in California
Last Friday, Governor Newsom signed SB 399 – The California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act into law.
SB 399, which will take effect on January 1, 2025, prohibits private and public employers in California from subjecting, or threatening
Navigating Politics in the Workplace
By: Navigating Politics in the Workplace
In a state as diverse and politically active as California, employers are bound to encounter clashing political expressions among employees this election cycle. Navigating these challenges and enforcing policies affecting the expression of employees’ political beliefs in the workplace can be a daunting task.
California Court of Appeal Upholds Adverse Employment Action Where Employee Unable to Perform Essential Job Functions
This month, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication to the employer in a disability discrimination case alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The opinion
2024 PAGA Reforms – Has the Landscape Changed?
By: 2024 PAGA Reforms – Has the Landscape Changed?
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), enacted in 2004, upturned California’s employment law landscape. In theory, PAGA allowed employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties
CDF Webinar: Navigating the New PAGA – A Strategic Guide for Employers
Join us for a complimentary webinar during which CDF partners will discuss the new iteration of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and related legal developments while providing attendees with strategic guidance on leveraging these reforms to avoid and defend PAGA litigation.
California Legislation Requires More Transparency from Employers Utilizing Child Labor
Earlier this week, California passed bill AB 3234 with ease in both the State Assembly (77-0) and the Senate (36-0). Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the bill.
AB 3234 requires employers who have voluntarily subjected their businesses to social compliance audits to post a clear and obvious link to a report that details the findings of their most recent social compliance audit on the website for their business. The report would need to include:
when the audit was conducted (year, month, day, and time, and whether the audit was conducted during the morning or evening shift);
whether the business engages in child labor;
a copy of the business’s written policies and procedures regarding child employees;
whether the business exposes children to any hazardous or unsafe workplace situations that could affect their physical or mental health and development; and
whether children work within or outside regular school hours or during night hours.
The bill defines “social compliance audits” as inspections of any production house, factory, farm or packaging facility of a business to verify that it complies with both social and ethical responsibilities as well as health and safety regulations regarding child labor.
Implications of Mahram v. The Kroger Co.: A Closer Look at Arbitration Agreements
In a recent legal dispute, Mahram v. The Kroger Co., a California Court of Appeal delivered a decision that may have implications for employment arbitration agreements. Although the case at hand involved a consumer transaction, the reasoning used by the court could influence how employment arbitration agreements are interpreted.
The Case at a Glance
Payam Mahram used Instacart, an online grocery delivery service, to purchase groceries from The Kroger Co. d/b/a Ralphs Grocery Company (“Ralphs”), a grocery store. In signing up to use Instacart (online), Mahram agreed to Instacart’s terms of service, which included an arbitration agreement. After using Instacart to order groceries from Ralphs, Mahram sued Ralphs – but not Instacart – claiming false advertising and unfair competition. Mahram alleged that Ralphs raised its advertised prices once he applied a coupon to his Instacart purchase. Ralphs, however, moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement between Mahram and Instacart. The crux of Ralphs’ argument was that, as a retailer working with Instacart, it should be considered a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. In other words, Ralphs argued it should be permitted to enforce the arbitration agreement between Mahram and Instacart even though Ralphs was not a party or signatory to the agreement.
The Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the denial of Ralphs’ motion, affirming that Mahram had agreed to arbitrate disputes solely with Instacart, not with Ralphs or any other third party. The ruling emphasized that, under California law, third-party beneficiaries to a contract can only enforce that contract if the contracting parties had a clear, “motivating purpose” to benefit the third party.
Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Against FTC’s Noncompete Ban
As of yesterday afternoon, employers across the country that utilize noncompete agreements may breathe a sigh of relief, as Judge Ada Brown beat her self-imposed deadline of August 30, 2024 and ordered an end to any enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Noncompete Rule.
Judge Brown, of the Northern District of Texas, evaluated competing motions for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiff, the related parties, and the FTC. She denied the FTC’s motion and granted the Plaintiffs’ motions. In reaching her decision, Judge Brown concluded that the FTC both exceeded its statutory authority derived from the Federal Trade Commission Act when it issued the Noncompete Rule earlier this year, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).
Judge Brown concluded that the Federal Trade Commission Act provided a limited role for making “housekeeping” rules to preclude unfair and deceptive practices, and as a result, the FTC lacks the authority to create substantive rules such as the Noncompete Rule that it promulgated.
Employers Score Another Win Against FTC, But Noncompete Ban Looms
In July, this blog alerted you to the outcome of the preliminary injunction rulings in Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission and ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, which resulted in a 1-1 tie between employers and the FTC. On August 14, 2024, employers won another limited injunction prohibiting the FTC from enforcing the ban against the plaintiff, Properties of the Villages, Inc. Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. Thus far, each employer victory is narrowly applied to the parties related to the immediate case. A nationwide ban or injunction is not in effect.
Therefore, all eyes are focused on Texas, as the Ryan court indicated that it would make a final decision on August 30, 2024. That decision may have more far-ranging implications.
Planning Ahead – Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Supreme Court Holds that Public Entities Are Not Subject to PAGA and Various Labor Code Violations
On August 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a momentous unanimous decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System (“Stone”), concluding that public employers are exempt from various Labor Code provisions and PAGA penalties.
Stone’s Procedural History
The former employee-plaintiffs in Stone worked at a hospital operated by Alameda Health System (AHS). AHS had been authorized by the county Board of Supervisors and Legislature to operate as a separate public agency, strictly and exclusively dedicated to managing the county’s public health facilities.
CDF Webinar: Avoiding Litigation – Effective Disability Accommodation Practices for California Employers
CDF Partners Leigh A. White and Marianne C. Koepf will present an insightful webinar on one of the fastest-growing areas of litigation in California: disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation. With the ever-increasing number of requests for accommodation and disability-related claims by employees, California employers are facing unprecedented challenges in balancing compliance with effective business operations.
Webinar Overview
Disability discrimination is a complex and critical issue that demands careful attention from employers. It’s essential for businesses to stay informed and proactive. This webinar will provide a comprehensive guide to understanding and complying with the latest disability laws in California, ensuring your business is protected from litigation while fostering an inclusive workplace.
Key Takeaways
-An overview of the current disability discrimination landscape in California
-Common challenges faced by employers and practical solutions
-Step-by-step guidance on compliance with disability laws and accommodation requirements
-Strategies to integrate compliance into your business operations without compromising efficiency
-Best practices to avoid litigation and promote a fair, inclusive workplace
Register today to reserve your spot. This webinar will help you stay ahead of the curve by gaining a deeper understanding of disability discrimination laws and how to legally comply with accommodations requests.
CDF Webinar: What Has Been Happening at the NLRB and with Unions in 2024?
Join CDF attorneys Mark S. Spring and Tashayla Billington for a one-hour in-depth review of the recent developments in traditional labor law. If you manage a union or non-union workforce in California, you won’t want to miss this webinar. This webinar will discuss issues related to managing unionized, or partially unionized, workforces as well as a discussion of legal issues related to the NLRB’s recent moves to aggressively regulate the policies and practices of non-union workplaces.
This webinar will cover:
– The recent NLRB joint employment standard and how it benefits unions and should scare employers.
– New strategies unions are using in organizing drives in light of Cemex and other pro-union developments at the NLRB.
– Considerations for non-union employers regarding employee handbooks and severance agreements in light of recent NLRB positions on these issues.
Do Not Become the Next Target—Unions have been aggressive about going after large retail companies like Starbucks and Amazon. They have also been aggressive in organizing industries that are not traditional union targets such as museums and family restaurants. Is your business prepared? How can businesses put themselves in the best position to avoid a union-organizing campaign and/or fight one if it comes their way? Get the answer to this question and more by joining CDF partners for what promises to be an informative and engaging webinar.
Register early to reserve your spot!
California’s Heating Up- CAL/OSHA’s New Indoor Heat Illness Regulations
By: California’s Heating Up- CAL/OSHA’s New Indoor Heat Illness Regulations
Cal/OSHA recently voted to adopt new regulations on indoor heat illness prevention. This new regulation applies to any indoor work area where “the temperature equals or exceeds 82 degrees Fahrenheit when employees are present,” which has the possibility to impact many
Significant PAGA Reform on the Horizon: What Employers Need to Know (and Do) to Protect Themselves
By: Significant PAGA Reform on the Horizon: What Employers Need to Know (and Do) to Protect Themselves
On June 17, labor and business groups reached an agreement with California Governor Newsom to reform California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). A summary of the deal was announced the following day. The proposed