Late last week, Governor Newsom signed SB 1383 into law, greatly expanding coverage of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). SB 1383 expands the scope of employers who are covered by CFRA to now include small employers with as few as five
Articles Discussing California Family Leave and Family Leave Act.
Two California cities, San Francisco and San Jose adopted emergency ordinances to expand paid sick leave and emergency Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave benefits. The ordinances cover gaps under federal law by expanding leave benefits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to employers with more than 500
School children are back at school following winter break, and that may mean employee requests for time off for parent-teacher conferences, school assemblies, and more. While less known, California law has a collection of statutes affording parents protected time off. One of those protections is California Labor Code section 230.8, which provides parents, and other parental figures, with protected time off to attend to child related activities.
“What did I do wrong” and “Am I doing this correctly?” are frequent questions from clients regarding FMLA administration.
This month, the City of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved a measure mandating that all employers in San Francisco provide six weeks of fully paid leave during a calendar year for new parents. The measure includes paid leave for mothers, fathers, and same-sex couples who either bear or adopt a child.
Earlier this week, California’s Governor signed into law AB 908, which, beginning January 1, 2018, increases the wage replacement rate for employees receiving disability insurance and/or paid family leave benefits through the state. Currently, the maximum wage replacement is about 55% of the employee’s compensation. Effective January 2018, this amount will increase to 60 or 70 percent of the employee’s compensation, depending on the employee’s income level. The new law will also eliminate the 7-day waiting period for receipt of paid family leave benefits. A copy of the new law is available here.
Executive Summary: California employers are now facing another hurdle in their efforts to comply with state’s paid leave law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, in light of a recent opinion letter from the state agency that enforces the law.
California employers who work closely with one or more other employers in a single business enterprise need to be aware of a significant change in a California law that could have major liability repercussions.
New York City legislation prohibiting employers generally from requesting or using the consumer credit histories of applicants or employees for employment purposes, or otherwise discriminating against applicants or employees with respect to hiring, compensation, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on their consumer credit history, will become effective on September 3, 2015, 120 days after signing by Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Amendments to the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) regulations, going into effect on July 1, 2015, are meant to clarify a number of uncertainties, align the CFRA regulations more closely with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) regulations (where the laws are consistent), and ensure employers and employees have a clear understanding of their rights and duties under the CFRA.
An employer did not violate California’s Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) by terminating an employee who engaged in outside employment while out on CFRA medical leave, conduct prohibited by the employer’s policy, the California Supreme Court has ruled. Richey v. AutoNation Inc., No. S207536 (Cal. Jan. 29, 2015).
Ruling that an employer did not misrepresent by deed or silence that its employee’s leave had been approved, the California Court of Appeal has affirmed a judgment in favor of an employer under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act, and has rejected the employee’s claim that the employer was prevented from denying the leave and terminating the employee for failing to report for work when directed. Olofsson v. Mission Linen Supply, No. A131471 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2012). However, noting that the employer’s denial of leave ultimately rested on the employee’s failure to meet the 1,250-hour threshold for FMLA/CFRA eligibility, the Court noted that if the employer had made its eligibility determination earlier than it did, litigation could have been avoided.