CDF Labor Law LLP

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.

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.

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 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.

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

By: Deal Reached on Proposed PAGA Amendments to Avert a November Vote on PAGA Repeal

Earlier today, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that labor and business groups concluded their ongoing negotiations and reached an agreement to reform California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The agreement is not yet in writing. Bill