In addition to having to comply with the new statewide paid sick leave law, California employers with employees in Oakland need to ensure that they are complying with a new Oakland minimum wage and paid sick leave measure that took effect March 2, 2015.
Articles Discussing General Workplace Issues in California.
California’s Senate Bill 1299, enacted in the fall of 2014, requires the State’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to adopt standards requiring certain hospitals to implement a workplace violence prevention plan by July 1, 2016. On February 5, 2015, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (the “Division”) issued a draft regulatory proposal that would require healthcare employers (including hospitals, clinics, drug-treatment facilities, home health care, and other healthcare operations) to develop workplace violence prevention plans specific to the hazards and corrective measures for each unit, service or operation of the employer. Covered employers could incorporate their workplace violence prevention plans into an existing injury and illness prevention program or maintain the plan as a separate document.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the California Supreme Court’s decision that representative claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) cannot be waived in employment arbitration agreements. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (Cal. 2014), cert. denied, No. 14-341 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015).
On January 1, 2015, California ‘s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (California paid sick leave act) went into effect. When Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed the Act into law on September 10, 2014, California became the second state to mandate that certain employers provide paid sick leave to employees.1 In addition, at least 18 cities, three of which are in California, have passed their own mandatory sick leave laws.2 In December 2014, the Office of the Labor Commissioner issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that clarified employers’ responsibilities under the new law.
Executive Summary: Last week marked the official start of the holiday season. As we’re now racing towards the end of the year, and getting ready for parties, gifts, and, perhaps, (ugh!) holiday travel, employers also should be getting ready to implement policies to comply with a number of new California laws that are expected to go into effect in 2015. The new laws cover a wide range of areas in employment, including leaves of absences, discrimination, and wage and hour issues. Below is a brief overview of twelve of the most notable new laws affecting businesses in the Golden State. They include:
It has been said that in many ways—including politically—the Golden State seems to march to the beat of its own drum. Accordingly, it comes as little surprise that the red Republican breaker that swept across the United States in last Tuesday’s election caused only a small wave in deep blue California.
Executive Summary: California employers that hire temporary workers now share liability with staffing agencies for certain violations of the state’s labor laws. On September 28, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1897, a controversial bill that significantly expands the scope of liability of employers that contract with staffing agencies. The full text of the bill is available on the California Legislature’s website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1897.
California recently enacted two laws that expand the training and staffing requirements for assisted living facilities in the state and another measure that requires hospitals to implement a workplace violence prevention plan.
California has taken the lead once again in the area of data breach notification laws. In 2002, California was the first state to pass a law requiring companies to notify affected individuals of the breach of their personal information. On September 30, 2014, California’s governor signed into law the first statute requiring businesses to provide free identity theft prevention services to subjects of a breach.
California has become the third state in the country, after New York and Oregon, to ban sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace directed toward unpaid interns.
An amendment to the California data breach notification statute requires companies that experience a data breach to include information in the notification that if identity theft prevention and mitigation services are provided, they must be provided for at least 12 months to affected persons at no cost if the breach exposed or may have exposed certain personal information. This is the first time any state has imposed such mandates. The new law, AB 1710, signed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 30, 2014, also expands the application of safeguard requirements for personal information and further prohibits certain uses and disclosures of Social Security numbers. The new law becomes effective January 1, 2015.
Since 2004, California employers with 50 or more employees have been required to provide their supervisors with sexual harassment training. Effective January 1, 2015, these employers will have an additional responsibility. Governor Jerry Brown signed A.B. 2053 into law on September 9, 2014, mandating that covered employers add anti-bullying training into their current sexual harassment training curriculum.1 While the new law codifies much of what employers may already be doing, it sets forth specific requirements they must follow starting January 1, 2015.
California Governor Jerry Brown has until next Tuesday, September 30, to sign or veto bills recently passed by the California Legislature.
By its own declaration, the California Legislature finished its 2013-2014 session in the early morning hours of Saturday, August 30 – a day early. Those bills it passed are now on the way to, or pending before, Governor Jerry Brown. The Legislature is in recess, with adjournment scheduled for November 30, 2014.
On August 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of California, in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, decided whether a franchisor was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims that the franchisor was vicariously liable for alleged tortious conduct by the franchisee’s employee. In a 4-3 decision, the court held that a franchisor becomes potentially liable for the actions of a franchisee’s employees only if the franchisor: