On July 1, 2025, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) published a “Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims Right to Leave and Accommodations” notice. The CRD also published guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the notice requirements. Both documents are available on the CRD
Articles about California Labor And Employment Law.
California’s AI Employment Discrimination Regs Receive Final Approval
The California Civil Rights Council has finally secured approval for its long-awaited regulations regarding employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI), algorithms, and other automated decision systems. The agency says the regulations will clarify how existing administrative laws apply to the use of emerging technology to make employment decisions. The approval
New California Crime Victims Notice Published – Here’s What You Need to Do
Heads up, HR leaders. On July 1, 2025, California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD) released the official Model Crime Victims Notice, titled “Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims Right to Leave and Accommodations.” This notice
City of Los Angeles Hotel Workers’ Minimum Wage Increase Put on Hold
The City of Los Angeles has put the minimum wage increase for hotel workers on hold. Certain provisions were to take effect on July 1, 2025. This decision comes after a referendum petition against the ordinance was filed with the City Clerk’s office on June 27, 2025.
The ordinancewouldincrease wages
California Appellate Court Affirms Employer’s Decertification of Meal and Rest Period Class Action
The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial court ruling decertifying a wage-and-hour class action alleging a hospital failed to comply with protections for meal and rest periods for registered nurses. The ruling provided several significant employer-friendly holdings regarding class certification in California wage-and-hour litigation.
California Civil Rights Department Publishes Survivors of Violence’s Right to Leave & Accommodation Notice and FAQ
Last year, California expanded victims’ leave provisions with Assembly Bill (AB) 2499. AB 2499 required the California Civil Rights Department (CRD),
Reminder: Minimum Wage Hikes Take Effect Tomorrow (July 1)
By: Reminder: Minimum Wage Hikes Take Effect Tomorrow (July 1)
On July 1, 2025 new increased minimum wage rates will be effective in many California cities and counties. Many municipalities are increasing the minimum wage across the board, and others have industry-specific increases. A more full explanation of the causes and specific minimum wage increases can be found in our previous blog post. California employers are strongly encouraged to review the applicable minimum wage in their municipalities to ensure they are paying the correct rates come July 1.
Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief
By: Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief
By: Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief
Last month, the Enforcement Division of the California Privacy Protection Agency (“the Privacy Police”) and Todd Snyder, Inc. (“Snyder”) resolved the investigation into Snyder’s website’s opt-out methods from November 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024 that allegedly violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).
Snyder, a New York based men’s clothing retailer, operated retail stores and a website. The website utilized third party tracking software to help it with analytics and cross-context behavioral advertising. While Snyder told consumers that they could opt-out, the Privacy Police claimed that the website was not properly configured to actually allow customers to opt out. One issue was that the website’s “consent banner” would appear and then instantaneously disappear preventing consumers from opting out. In addition, when a consumer was able to reach the opt-out option, the Privacy Police claimed that Snyder was culpable of requiring an improper verification standard to persons who wished to opt out. Snyder required all consumers attempting to opt-out to verify the person’s name, email, country of residence and submit a photograph of the consumer holding official identity documents, like a driver’s license.
The Privacy Police criticized Snyder for:
- Allowing a third-party to manage Snyder’s website without adequate supervision by Snyder;
- Forcing consumers who wished to opt-out of sale/sharing to provide verification as such requests do not require verification under the CCPA;
- Requiring more identification information to opt-out than Snyder required when consumers made a purchase; and
- Requiring consumers to provide government identification documents with Sensitive Personal Information (“SPI”) which might decrease opt-out requests due to concerns about identity theft.
Take Aways
Snyder did not admit to liability for any violation of the CCPA and the full scope of the Privacy Police’s investigation and extent of potential penalties is not published in the Stipulation. The expedited resolution in the first four months of 2025 demonstrates that Snyder must have concluded that an expedited settlement, including payment of over $345,000 in fines and providing the Privacy Police with confirmation that it has developed new procedures to handle SPI and procedures to monitor third parties to ensure compliance with CCPA was the most efficient way to dispose of the investigation, legal fees and risks of greater penalties.
The Privacy Police monitor California and out-of-state corporations, alike. Any business that operates a website that shares or sells consumer information for 100,000 or more consumers should review their policies and opt out procedures to ensure compliance with the CCPA. Owners of commercial websites will be held responsible for monitoring consumer Opt-Out requirements, even if they believe that they have delegated such monitoring to third party vendors. Finally, ensure that the opt-out requirements comply with the CCPA and do not require unnecessary verification information or copies of government documents that contain personal identifying information.
Conclusion
The CCPA signifies a major advancement in consumer privacy protection, necessitating businesses to adopt proactive measures to ensure compliance. Contact Dan M. Forman, Linda Wang or your favorite member of CDF’s Privacy Practice Group to better understand potential penalties and the importance of safeguarding consumer data.
2025 Compliance Checklist: Distributing the CRD’s New Model Notice Under AB 2499
By: 2025 Compliance Checklist: Distributing the CRD’s New Model Notice Under AB 2499
After January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill 2499 put new requirements on how California employers treat employees that are victims of crime. The bill expanded the definition of “victim” to include not only individuals directly subjected to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but also those who have experienced other qualifying crimes or abuse: including serious bodily injury, threat of injury or death, and crimes resulting in the death of a family member. The bill revises and expands leave protections for those victims. Next, the bill requires that all employers provide employees with written notice of their rights under the statute. Last, the new law requires companies with 25 or more employees to offer employees the same leave protections when one of the employee’s family members is the victim.
Now the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has issued the official model notice that employers are required to distribute.
What Does the Notice Cover?
The notice informs employees that are crime victims of their rights to:
- Take job-protected leave to:
- Obtain medical attention or psychological counseling related to an injury or experience of abuse or crime
- Participate in safety planning, including relocating or implementing protective measures
- Seek services from a domestic violence shelter, rape crisis center, or victim advocacy organization
- Attend court proceedings, including those related to protective orders, restraining orders, or other legal actions connected to the crime
- Handle other needs arising as a direct result of being a victim (or a family member of a victim), such as attending funerals, grieving, or resolving legal and financial matters
- Request reasonable safety accommodations in the workplace, which may include:
- Modified work schedules or location changes
- Installation of locks, implementation of safety protocols, or other adjustments to increase physical security
- Changes to phone numbers, email addresses, or other personal contact information
- Transfer or reassignment, if appropriate and feasible
- Be protected from retaliation or discrimination for:
- Taking or requesting leave under these provisions
- Requesting workplace accommodations for safety
- Disclosing victim status to the employer for the purpose of obtaining these protections
Again, when a company has 25 or more employees, these same protections must be made available to an employee when their family member is the victim.
Distribution Requirements for Employers
All employers must provide the CRD’s model notice in two situations:
- To all new employees at the time of hire
- To current employees upon request
Employers may use the model notice published by the CRD or create their own version, so long as the notice is “substantially similar in content and clarity.”
Next Steps for Employers
To ensure compliance, employers should:
- Download and review the model notice issued by the CRD.
- Incorporate the notice into onboarding documents for all new hires and make sure it is available to current employees
- Train HR personnel and managers on employee rights under AB 2499 and related Labor Code provisions
- Review and update relevant leave, accommodation, and anti-retaliation policies
The CRD has until July 1, 20225 to post the new notice. You can check for updates here. We will also update this blog with a link to the new notice as soon as it is issued.
If you have any questions regarding the CRD’s new notice, please contact your favorite CDF attorney. To stay up to date, be sure to subscribe to CDF’s California Labor & Employment Blog.
*Special thanks to CDF law clerk Victor Weber for their research and contributions to this article.
CCPA Compliance Reminder: Annual Update Requirement for Online Privacy Policies
For businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a compliance step often overlooked is the requirement to annually update the
Too Hot to Handle: Don’t Get Burned by Cal/OSHA’s Heat Rules
As summer temperatures rise across California, it’s a good time for employers to review their responsibilities under Cal/OSHA’s heat illness prevention standards. These rules apply to both outdoor and indoor workplaces and are designed to protect employees from heat-related illnesses and injury.
The outdoor heat illness prevention standards apply to
Reminder: California Healthcare Minimum Wage Increase Effective July 1, 2025
Employers in the healthcare industry in California are subject to a separate minimum wage from other employers.
Effective July 1, 2025, certain healthcare facilities will see an increase in their minimum wage rates. The following is a summary of the increases based on the type of employer.
Type of Healthcare
California Appellate Court Finds Prior PAGA Statute Provided Standing for Former Employee More Than Year Later
On May 27, 2025, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that a former employee retains standing to bring California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims against an employer more than a year after separation, even though PAGA’s statute of limitations for civil penalties is one
Unconscionable Employment Terms In Onboarding Documents Can Void Arbitration Agreements
By: Unconscionable Employment Terms In Onboarding Documents Can Void Arbitration Agreements
On June 13, 2025, a California Court of Appeal struck down an arbitration agreement because of unconscionable terms entered by the parties in a separate employment agreement, governing different dispute resolution fora and procedures that were more favorable to the employer. In Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., the Court held that the employment agreement and arbitration agreement (which did not have an integration clause) signed simultaneously as part of the hiring process must be read together, and that unconscionable—or, in other words, unfair—terms can render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
In Silva, several employees brought class and representative claims against Cross Country Healthcare based on alleged California Labor Code violations. The employer moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the Arbitration Agreement, signed by the employees prior to employment, included a class action waiver clause and required arbitration of all claims between the employees and the employer on an individual basis.
The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that because the Arbitration Agreement and Employment Agreement were executed on the same day as part of the employee’s hiring and both dealt with how disputes between the employer and employee would be resolved, they must be read together. Moreover, the trial court determined that because the Employment Agreement contained unconscionable terms that favored the employer (allowing the employer to seek injunctions in court for the type of claims the employer would most likely pursue), the arbitration agreement requiring the employee to pursue claims only in arbitration rendered the arbitration agreement unconscionable.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s findings.
The Court of Appeal found that the two agreements created a one-sided framework favoring the employer for two reasons: (1) the agreements required arbitration of claims more likely to be brought by employees (the weaker party), but exempted from arbitration claims more likely to be brought by the employer (the stronger party); (2) the Employment Agreement included terms that have repeatedly been found to be unconscionable, requiring the employees to agree (without similar concessions in the employees’ favor) that:
- The confidentiality, non-compete, and non-solicitation terms are lawful
- Any breach of those terms will cause irreparable harm to the employer
- The employer is entitled to injunctive relief
- The employer could obtain injunctive relief without posting bond, which is usually required.
Finally, since the agreements created an entire arbitration scheme that is unfairly one-sided as to highly favor the employer, the court found that the trial court properly used its discretion in rendering the entire Arbitration Agreement unenforceable, rather than rewrite the agreements to negate the unconscionable terms.
Takeaways for Employers
The Silva decision rejected the employer’s attempt to sidestep longstanding California precedent by having employees sign two agreements to get the benefit of arbitration that would be otherwise unconscionable under a single agreement.
Employers should be advised to review all documents executed in the onboarding process and revise any terms that may be viewed as unconscionable when read in conjunction with any mandatory arbitration agreements.
If you have any questions about this decision or how it may affect your new-hire onboarding agreements, arbitration agreements, or litigation strategies, please contact your favorite CDF attorney. To stay up to date, be sure to subscribe to CDF’s California Labor & Employment Blog.
*Special thanks to CDF law clerk Sara Anderson for her research and contributions to this article.
California Senate Passes Nation’s First Bill for Accessibility Violation Cure Period
The California Senate recently passed legislation (Senate Bill No. 84) that would require a plaintiff to give a qualified business notice and 120 days to cure an accessibility violation before filing a lawsuit seeking statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. The bill would create the nation’s first true safe harbor for