Articles Discussing General Workplace Issues in California.

In response to our June 6, 2013 Restaurant Industry Newsletter, we received several questions about whether California’s human trafficking statute applies to all restaurants and drinking establishments. As a result, we are providing the following answers as a guide to help you determine whether you must comply with the statute.

Executive Summary: The California Legislature has enacted a new law that requires certain businesses in the hospitality, transportation, and healthcare industries to post public notices regarding slavery and human trafficking or face stiff penalties. This new law became effective on April 1, 2013 and is the latest in California’s efforts to combat this unlawful multi-million dollar industry.

“Agencies are barred from using a partner in a law firm as an advocate in a contested matter and another partner from the same law firm as an advisor to the decision maker in the same matter,” the California Court of Appeal has ruled in an arbitration case involving the termination of a police officer. Sabey v. City of Pomona, No. B239916 (Cal. Ct App. Apr. 16, 2013).

Human trafficking is one of the 21st century’s buzz phrases. There is some disagreement on exactly what human trafficking means, but regardless of precisely how it is defined, it is widely accepted as a detrimental practice that should be stopped. Accordingly, a wide variety of local, national and international governments and institutions have taken or enacted measures to address trafficking. Likewise, a number of businesses have promulgated internal self-governance policies with the aim of eradicating human trafficking from their supply chains.

In this podcast, Littler’s Christopher Cobey elaborates on employment laws that were recently passed in California. He provides insight on the significance of these laws for employers and human resources professionals and explains how they must comply in 2013.

Executive Summary: After the Mayans failed to predict the end of the world on December 21, 2012, it became apparent that California employers would have to comply with a string of new laws that take effect on January 1, 2013. Here is a summary of seven new employment laws to be aware of so you can revise your employment policies accordingly.

The following chart lists the major pieces of employment legislation introduced in the California State Senate and Assembly during 2012 that were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. All of the bills listed become effective January 1, 2013.

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law new requirements specifying when and how employers must respond to their employees’ requests for inspection and copying of their personnel files. The new requirements become effective January 1, 2013.

In a case that will impact employers whose employees use their own vehicles for work, the California Supreme Court is about to address whether an employer’s insurance covered a deadly automobile accident caused by an employee driving his own car. American States Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, No. S205073 (Cal. Oct. 24, 2012). The Court will consider whether a form included with the employee’s own insurance policy documents that listed him as a driver was part of the insurance policy, even though the employee’s vehicle was not listed as a covered vehicle in the policy’s declarations. The Court also will review whether this form created an ambiguity in coverage that should be construed against the insurer.

After a series of alleged incidents reported in the news media of employers (principally public employers) requesting or requiring access to employees’ or applicants’ personal social media accounts, legislators around the country rushed to introduce legislation in response to the public outcry. Maryland and then Illinois enacted the country’s first two “password protection” laws. On September 27, 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the nation’s third such law that generally prohibits employers from requiring or requesting that an employee or applicant provide access to personal social media content. Unlike the Illinois and Maryland laws, however, California’s law embodies a more balanced approach, taking into account employers’ legitimate business interests. It is effective January 1, 2013.

The members of the California State Senate and Assembly introduced 1,899 bills this year, and the legislature passed and sent to the governor 568 of them. On September 30, Governor Jerry Brown completed his work of signing or vetoing the bills presented to him.

After months of waiting, California Governor Jerry Brown presented a sweeping package of pension reform measures to the California Legislature. The reform measures primarily affect the pension benefits available to government employees who are hired on or after January 1, 2013.

California is the birthplace of the franchise business model. Today, there are approximately 62,000 independent franchisees operating in California, employing more than 1.1 million state residents.

Companies seeking to prohibit unlawful solicitation of customers should be encouraged by a recent federal court decision.

A Georgia choice-of-law provision in a contract entitled, “Independent Truckman’s Agreement,” between California truck drivers and a Georgia company was unenforceable based on California public policy, the federal appeals court in San Francisco has held. Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court also ruled that California law applied in determining whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors. Vacating the lower court’s judgment in favor of a Georgia transportation company in a wage-hour class action suit, the Court remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings to determine whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors.