Articles Discussing General Workplace Issues in California.

“Throughout the year, we certainly find some of the policies that we think ‘we should maybe change that moving forward.’ The beginning of the new year is a great opportunity to take a look at these things with new eyes and work with our management teams to really be business partners and not just advise but strategize with them as we move forward.”

“PAGA is a statute that’s not employer-friendly, but one of the benefits of this last year is that we had some amendments come through that did, for lack of a better phrase, throw employers a little bit of a bone when it came to dealing with PAGA cases. One benefit is an expanded ability to cure labor code violations. The other involves arbitration and our ability to fight these claims and not just have to wait to trial to do it.”

The Golden State had lost some of its luster among California employers due to its Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), with some calling it “one of the least just and fair laws that employers are dealing with today in California.” Yet two recent PAGA amendments may help restore the state’s business shine in 2025 and beyond.

Wildfires continue to sweep through Southern California, leaving thousands of people displaced as well as burning businesses to the ground. Beyond the personal and community impacts, wildfires present unique challenges for employers who must navigate workplace safety, legal compliance, and operational disruptions. Employers should keep the following in mind during this crisis.

Workplace Safety and Health

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) mandates that employers protect employees from workplace hazards, including those arising during natural disasters. This includes protecting employees from wildfire smoke exposure whenever the Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM2.5 exceeds 151. 

While the AQI has vastly improved as of the time of this post, high wind alerts and varying conditions make it imperative for employers to stay vigilant and well-informed. This includes ensuring that the AQI of any worksite affected by wildfire is regularly monitored prior to and throughout each work shift.  

Employers must provide respirators to all employees (and encourage their use) for all worksites experiencing an AQI of 151-500– as many areas of Los Angeles experienced in the last week. 

More information regarding wildfire smoke standards can be found on Cal/OSHA’s website.

Employers should also stay informed regarding local evacuation orders and clearly communicate to employees how such orders impact reporting to work and the business. For those near evacuation sites, providing necessary personal protective equipment, implementing flexible schedules, identifying evacuation routes, and considering telecommuting arrangements may all become important things to consider.

Wage and Hour Compliance

Nonexempt Employees

Employers must continue to track and compensate nonexempt employees for all hours worked, even during disruptions. This includes ensuring that employees are paid for additional hours worked while navigating operational changes. However, there are some requirements that may be impacted by the wildfires:

• Timekeeping Record Unavailability: If an employer’s timekeeping records were lost or are now unusable, the employee’s hours worked must be re-established so that the employees receive timely compensation.  Employers should work with employees to confirm their hours during the affected period, and, ideally, obtain related written confirmation. 
   
• Reporting Time Pay: California law generally requires employers to compensate employees who report to work but are sent home early. However, this obligation does not apply in cases where work interruptions result from “Acts of God” or other uncontrollable events, such as wildfires.
   
• Split-Shift Premiums: Flexibility is essential given varying conditions when experiencing an ongoing natural disaster.  This means that some employers may find the need to send employees home early, asking them to return early in the day.  In those situations, employers may owe employees a split shift premium (one hour of pay at the state minimum wage.) 
   
• Employees On-Call: If an employee is on-call (and under the employer’s control) during the wildfires, they must be compensated for that time.
   
• Business Closure: If a business remains closed for a period of time, nonexempt employees do not need to be paid for their remaining scheduled shifts unless they perform work.

Exempt Employees

Exempt employees are entitled to their full salary for any week in which they perform work, even if workplace disruptions occur. However, employers are not required to pay exempt employees for full-week closures during which the employee performs no work.  

Telecommuting Arrangements

Employers may be asked to consider remote work arrangements while the wildfires are still in play. Some of those requests may fall under a request for reasonable accommodation (as further discussed below).

Employers considering telecommuting arrangements may want to refer to this article.

Leaves of Absence And Accommodation Issues

Leave Entitlement 

Employees affected by the wildfires may qualify for leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Covered reasons include serious health conditions caused by wildfire smoke or injuries, and the need to care for impacted family members.

Employees involved in disaster relief may also have specific work protections under California law. Employers should be familiar with applicable state and local provisions to ensure compliance while supporting employees in need.

Accommodation Requests

Conditions created by the wildfires may create the need for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The wildfires may impact employees’ physical or mental health, leading to workplace restrictions. Employers should engage in the same interactive process as any other time an employee requests a reasonable accommodation for a medical condition. 

Sick Leave and Paid Time Off

Employees in California may use accrued sick leave for absences related to the wildfire disaster, provided the reason aligns with a permissible use under the law, such as addressing health concerns or caring for a family member. Additionally, employees may opt to use paid leave under the company’s vacation or paid time off (PTO) policy, if the policy permits or if the employer allows it. It is essential to keep employees informed about their leave entitlements and any workplace changes resulting from the disaster to ensure compliance and support during this challenging time.

Reduction In Force Issues

Employers forced to reduce staff or temporarily shut down due to wildfires should assess obligations under the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (Cal-WARN) Act. While Cal-WARN generally requires 60 days’ notice of mass layoffs or closures, the law exempts employers in cases of “physical calamity.” Employers must still communicate transparently with employees and document efforts to comply with legal requirements.

Opportunities

Employers have the opportunity to work with employees and neighborhoods in crisis to start volunteer projects, join volunteer efforts and help care for employees who have lost everything in the wildfires. Participation in such efforts in the weeks/months to come will help communities return to a more normal status, generate goodwill and morale and teamwork among a workforce.

Looking Ahead

As the wildfires continue to threaten Southern California and the situation continues to develop, employers will continue to face many unprecedented challenges. CDF is here to support our clients and their workforce. Employers in need of assistance in managing these challenging times should consult their favorite CDF attorney.  
 

By: Last Ride For “Headless” PAGA Actions

By: Last Ride For “Headless” PAGA Actions

Yesterday, the California Court of Appeal in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., held that because every PAGA action necessarily includes an “individual PAGA claim” a PAGA plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration by asserting purely representative PAGA claim on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees (i.e., a “headless” PAGA action). Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court must order Leeper’s “individual PAGA claim to arbitration” and must stay the litigation in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. We previously posted about California Employers’ Fight Against “Headless” PAGA  Actions like the one at issue in Leeper. The Leeper decision should put an end to it. 

The underlying lawsuit involved a single PAGA cause of action, which Leeper purported to bring “on a representative, non-individual basis” and through which she sought to recover “non-individual civil penalties.” In her complaint, Leeper addressed her arbitration agreement by asserting, “Because [Leeper] alleges only non-individual PAGA claims on a representative basis, Shipt cannot compel them to arbitrat[ion].” Like many (if not all) other plaintiffs seeking to litigate a “headless” PAGA action, Leeper relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balderas v. Fresh Start to support her argument PAGA plaintiffs may disclaim their “individual PAGA claim,” avoid arbitration, and proceed with litigating a purely “representative PAGA claim” in court. 

In Leeper, the Court of Appeal explained that the unambiguous text of the PAGA statute authorizes only claims for civil penalties brought by the employee plaintiff “and other current or former employees.” Further, the court explained that Balderas does not support the position that a plaintiff may properly maintain a purely representative PAGA claim because Balderas “did not have occasion to discuss, did not discuss, and its holding does not address, whether a plaintiff may carve out an individual PAGA claim from a PAGA action.” 

The distinction between Leeper and Balderas is critical, as both decisions were published by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Undoubtedly, PAGA plaintiffs will argue Leeper is not binding because it creates a “split of authority” with Balderas. But trial courts will not likely take the bait. 

Leeper specifically addresses and rejects the argument that PAGA plaintiffs may properly disclaim the arbitrable, individual components of their PAGA action to avoid arbitration. Balderas held that trial courts may not dismiss a PAGA lawsuit brought by an allegedly “aggrieved employee” who does not specifically assert an individual claim. Both decisions can and do coexist within the post-Viking River framework of PAGA jurisprudence. Generally, an “aggrieved employee” has standing to maintain a PAGA action even if it does not specifically assert an individual claim (Balderas), but that PAGA action nonetheless includes an “individual PAGA claim” that may be subject to an arbitration agreement (Leeper). Because there is no actual split of authority on the issue, the Leeper decision should bind all California trial courts.

If you have any questions about this blog post, please contact the authors Corey Cabral and Sander van der Heide or your favorite CDF attorney. We will continue to monitor the evolving PAGA legal landscape, so if you haven’t already, subscribe to CDF’s California Labor & Employment Law Blog to ensure you don’t miss out on future posts. 

California Law For decades, California has allowed employers to pay intellectually or developmentally disabled workers a subminimum wage in certain settings. Currently, disabled workers employed through a “sheltered” disability program are paid from $3 to $14

The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2024 about issues such as the application of PAGA to public employees and the

Compliance with California’s paid sick leave law grew increasingly complex this year with new legislative developments. The Labor Commission updated its

Recently, the Los Angeles City Council approved a motion to amend the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) and the Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance (HWMO),