Employment Law Information Network
All Things Labor and Employment Law
By: The Future of Remote Court in California
Three key pieces of legislation, AB 199, SB 848, and SB 241 are shaping the future of remote court proceedings in California.
Remote court proceedings are no longer viewed as merely temporary pandemic-induced measures in California. They have become part of everyday
By: CDF’s California Labor & Employment Law Blog Listed on Feedspot’s Top Blog List
By: CDF’s California Labor & Employment Law Blog Listed on Feedspot’s Top Blog List
By: CDF’s California Labor & Employment Law Blog Listed on Feedspot’s Top Blog List
By: CDF’s California Labor & Employment Law Blog Listed on Feedspot’s
Employee monitoring and tracking technologies implemented to ensure remote employee productivity for remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic need to be handled carefully. California employers seeking to learn whether employees surfed the internet or posted to social media for non-work purposes have increasingly used a variety of technologies, including keystroke monitors and other productivity software on phones and laptops, GPS trackers on work computers and work vehicles, and website monitoring on computers to monitor employees’ activities. Some employers monitor logins, activity on messaging, and collaborative programs and applications such as Slack, Google Workspace, Microsoft Teams, and Microsoft Office to track employees’ work time.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (EPCA), passed by Congress, is the federal law that governs the monitoring of electronic communications in the workplace. The Act prohibits employers from intentionally intercepting and monitoring their employees’ work communications. However, there are some exceptions that allow employers to get around the Act. The first is the Business Purpose Exception, which permits employers and companies to intercept their employees’ work communications, when the company can prove that a legitimate business purpose exists. The second exception is when the employer receives consent from their employee allowing the monitoring and intercepting of the employee’s oral, wire, and electronic work communications. Employers often seek written consent during the orientation process as part of the onboarding documents.
IRVINE, Calif., November 28, 2022. CDF Labor Law LLP (CDF), Counsel to California Employers®, proudly announces its California Labor & Employment Law Blog (“blog”) has been ranked 5th on Feedspot’s recent 2022 list of the “Top 70 California Employment Law Blogs and Websites,” and its website CDF Labor Law LLP ranked #15. This is the second year in a row the firm’s blog has been ranked in the top 10. According to FeedSpot, the list was created “from thousands of blogs on the web and ranked by traffic, social media followers, domain authority and freshness.”
Although the National Labor Relations Board has been one of the most active and aggressive federal labor/employment agencies since Biden took control of the Executive Branch almost two years ago, there is trouble brewing. The NLRB has had the same $274 million dollar budget since 2014 according to its General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The lack of a budget increase is now causing the NLRB to consider furloughing career agency employees. At the same time, the union for the NLRB workers publicly blasted the Board Administration, and more specifically GC Abruzzo, for their positions at the bargaining table on Thursday via its Twitter page @TheNLRBU.
In a letter to the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees responsible for NLRB funding, co-authored by NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran and General Counsel Abruzzo, explained that the budget paralysis, combined with inflation, has substantially reduced the NLRB’s purchasing power to just 75% of what it was in 2014 and that additional funding will be needed to keep the NLRB at status quo in light of $18.7 million in new expenses for required pay increases, non-labor inflation, and upcoming field office relocations. These increased expenses, says the NLRB, are beyond its control and, absent Congressional approval of a sufficiently increased budget, it will have to furlough NLRB employees. Of note, the letter cites a $10.7 million increase in labor costs stemming from a 4.6% raise to its workforce that goes into effect in 2023 and emphasizes that the NRLB has “exhausted its ability to absorb cost increases through staff attrition and operational efficiencies,” suggesting the NLRB is already running a lean operation.
By: State Department Now Issues Five-Year TN Visas to Mexican Citizens
A recent change in visa processing allows Mexican TN visa applicants to receive a five-year visa. Before this change, Mexican citizens were issued a visa valid for only one year. This policy change allows Mexican TN visa holders to avoid
The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) that amended California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CPPA) comes fully into force on January 1, 2023 and the California Privacy Protection Agency is supposed to start enforcing the CPRA on July 1, 2023.
Covered employers should spend sufficient time at the end of 2022 to prepare for compliance. Attached is a sample template Notice that employers may review to help move that process forward. Please note that any notice should be customized for an employer’s specific business and there is no “one size fits all” notice provision.
By: NLRB Proposal Seeks to Make Removing Unions More Difficult
The Biden National Labor Relations Board has been very busy trying to undue the work of the Trump Board ever since Jennifer Abruzzo took over as NLRB General Counsel. In the latest maneuver, on November 3rd, the Board issued a proposed
Over the past decade, California employers have reasonably relied on consistent rulings from courts as well as state and federal administrative agencies upholding the validity of time rounding systems as
In ten days, on October 31, 2022, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two very important affirmative action education cases. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (Harvard), the plaintiffs argue that Harvard used race at multiple stages of the admission process in a manner that violates applicable law and disadvantages Asian applicants. In Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (UNC), the plaintiffs argue that UNC utilized race in admissions in a manner that was not narrowly tailored enough to be legal and as a result, it disadvantages Asian applicants. More specifically, the plaintiffs in these cases claim that the admissions policies of these universities violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In ruling on these cases, the Supreme Court will likely consider whether to overrule the court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan could consider race, in a narrowly tailored manner, in its undergraduate admissions process as part of its diversity efforts and goal of obtaining a more diverse student body.
In 1986, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) was amended to require all employers to verify the employment eligibility of all newly hired workers. The regulations interpreting the INA require employers to physically inspect the documents employees present as evidence of employment authorization.
On March 20, 2020, ICE suspended the physical inspection requirement. The requirement was suspended to accommodate employers facing COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and the proliferation of remote work. ICE permitted employers to inspect I-9 documents over video link, fax, or email, and obtain, inspect, and retain copies of the documents within three business days of hire. In its announcement, ICE warned that these changes were to be temporary. ICE advised that at the conclusion of the pandemic, employers would be required to physically inspect the employment eligibility documents for all employees hired under remote inspection. ICE threatened that employers that did not physically inspect employment eligibility documents within three days after the expiration date of the temporary rule change would face fines and other penalties.
ICE has extended the expiration date of the remote verification rule change several times. Most recently, on October 11, 2022, ICE extended the pandemic accommodation until July 31, 2023. However, in the press release announcing the extension, ICE hints that this may be the last extension. The press release states:
“Employers are encouraged to begin, at their discretion, the in-person verification of identity and employment eligibility documentation for employees who were hired on or after March 20, 2020, and who presented such documents for remote inspection in reliance on the flexibilities first announced in March 2020.”
While it would seem that commencing in-person I-9 document verification now would be prudent, any employer contemplating taking such an action should consult counsel and tread very carefully. Employers have no authority to demand the production of I-9 documents while the accommodation is in place. Employees may greet such a request with hostility, see it as a threat to their continued employment, or assert that it creates some kind of illegal harassment or discrimination.
On October 14, 2022, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) ordered a new definition of “Close Contact” effective immediately. The new definition requires employers to reexamine existing COVID-19 policies and notices to employees, update them to conform to the CDPH’s newest guidance and adapt related protocols. This is especially important as the COVID-19 notice mandate to provide notice of potential exposure to COVID-19 to employees was set to sunset on January 1, 2023 until Governor Newsom signed AB 2693 into law extending the notice requirement another year, through January 1, 2024.
History of Dues Checkoff Precedent
In 1962, years before most working Americans were even born, the NLRB issued its decision in Bethlehem Steel. That decision held that dues checkoff clauses in collective bargaining agreements
On November 15, 2022, from 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. (Pacific Time), CDF Partners Mark S. Spring and Alison Tsao will be presenting our annual complimentary “Year in Review” webinar that will cover 2022’s new laws, key judicial decisions, and developments affecting California employers in 2023 and beyond.
With the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic now largely in the rear-view mirror, the most recent California legislation focuses on aggressively expanding employee rights in other areas. This webinar will cover the court decisions and recent legislation passed that will require California employers to take action as they prepare for 2023.
Topics will include:
-New mandatory bereavement leave requirements
-Expanded family leave that will allow California employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave to care for individuals who are not family members
-Another raise to the state minimum wage and corresponding salary tests for exempt status qualification
-New requirements that require California to provide job applicants and current employees additional information on pay ranges
-New obligations that mandate that California employers provide detailed pay data to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
-Recent developments regarding the use of mandatory arbitration in California
-Other important legal changes that California employers need to be aware of to ensure compliance in 2023
During this comprehensive webinar, Mark and Alison will review these developments and provide compliance guidance to assist employers as they prepare for 2023.
Register today to reserve your spot for one of our most popular webinars.
Following the passage of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), for the past two years, employers have been partially exempt from many of the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (CCPA) mandates pertaining to applicants, employees, and contractors. However, effective January 1, 2023, the partial exemption expires and covered employers should be ready to fully implement CCPA and CPRA with respect to their workforce. Likewise, the B2B exemption will disappear on January 1, 2023, which previously excluded personal information gathered from individuals representing a business that conducted business with a CCPA-covered entity.
During this one-hour webinar on October 26, 2022, from 10-11:00 a.m. (Pacific), CDF attorneys Dan M. Forman, Linda Wang, and Dalia Z. Khatib will discuss the impact of CCPA/CPRA in the employment relationship, including:
– Covered Employers
– Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information
– Data Mapping
– Notices to Employees
– Privacy Policies as They Pertain to Employees
– Requests from Employees Regarding Privacy Rights, Correction, and Deletion of Private Information
– Reasonable Security Procedures
– CPRA Proposed Regulations
– California Privacy Protection Agency
– Safe Harbor Notices, Enforcement Actions, and Projected Litigation
Register early to reserve your spot for this informative webinar!
CA MCLE, HRCI and SHRM credit pending.
Social Profiles