Articles Discussing California Labor Law.

By: Captive Audience Meetings Now Banned By State Law in California 

Last Friday, Governor Newsom signed SB 399 – The California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act into law.  

SB 399, which will take effect on January 1, 2025, prohibits private and public employers in California from subjecting, or threatening

Governor Newsom has officially signed Senate Bill (SB) 399 into law, which enacts the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act (Act) to take effect January 1, 2025. California employers have been monitoring its passage because of its potential impact on an employer’s ability to lawfully communicate its position and

On August 31, 2024, the California Legislature passed the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, Senate Bill (SB) No. 399. The bill heads to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until September 30, 2024, to sign it. If he does so, the act will add new Labor Code Section 1137.

Later this month, we will report on all the new employment-related laws that California has enacted for 2024. However, this article focuses on the bills that Newsom vetoed. Some of these are a bit of a surprise.

SB 799: This bill would have required the EDD to treat employees who are on strike as eligible for unemployment. Many labor law attorneys, including the author of this article, anticipated that Newsom would sign this bill and allow California to join New York and New Jersey, as states that require UI benefits be paid to striking workers. However, Newsom vetoed the bill and indicated that the EDD did not have the finances to expand UI benefits to striking workers. The unions are very disappointed in Newsom for this veto.

Last week, Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (“SCA 7”) passed the California Senate Labor Committee. This provision, if placed before the voters and passed, would add Section 1.5 to Article XIV of the California Constitution. Specifically, SCA 7 would add to the California Constitution that Californians have the right to join a union and to negotiate with their employers, through their legally chosen representative, to protect their economic well-being and safety at work. It would also prohibit, after January 1, 2023, the passing of any statute or ordinance that interferes with or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety.

Because it proposes a change to the state constitution, SCA 7 will require the approval of two-thirds of the members in each chamber before it is placed on the statewide ballot, potentially in the March 2024 statewide primary election.

By: 9th Circuit Confirms Limited Application of Heightened Penalties for “Subsequent” Labor Code Violations

On February 23, 2021, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel held in the decision of Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc. (Case No. 19-15382) that employers are not subject to heightened penalties for subsequent violations under the Labor Code

California Attorney General (AG) Xavier Becerra recently announced that he has created the Worker Rights and Fair Labor Section, which will fall under the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Division of Public Rights. This new section will be tasked with protecting workers against workplace issues such as wage theft, health

The California Supreme Court recently heard the case of Troester v. Starbucks Corporation which could significantly increase employers’ exposure to claims by hourly paid employees for small pre-shift and post-shift tasks that are currently treated as insignificant and not compensable.

In a recent decision, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District Court for the Central District of California clarified an available avenue for employers with collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) to combat the growing trend of wage and hour lawsuits in California. In granting defendant Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (“Kiewit”) motion for summary judgment (by way of a motion for reconsideration), Judge Gutierrez dismissed various Labor Code claims, including claims for meal and rest break violations, because the claims were exempted by (rather than pre-empted by) Kiewit’s existing CBA. See Peter Zayerz v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., 16-CV-6405-PSC (PJW)(January 18, 2018).

In recent years, there has been an uptick in union organizing focusing on California charter schools. Traditionally, education related labor groups focused on organizing large public school districts, but with over 1,200 charter schools in California, groups like the California Teachers Association have shifted gears to try to bring unions into charter schools. Such organizing efforts often occur surreptitiously, and relatively quickly; if charter schools are not vigilant in their approach to labor groups, they can quickly be entangled in lengthy union negotiations which can divert attention from curriculum development and student growth.

Overturning a trial court ruling, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that teacher tenure laws are constitutional in the case of Vergara v. State of California, decided April 14, 2016.

The recent death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia will give public sector unions a short respite in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association et al., a case that was likely to limit public sector unions’ ability to require mandatory fees from public workers. Following last month’s oral arguments before the High Court, many legal analysts expected a 5-4 opinion in Friedrichs, striking down mandatory union fees for public workers. Now, it is possible that the lower court ruling upholding the fees will remain in place.

California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) allows an “aggrieved employee” to recover civil penalties for certain violations of the California Labor Code. The amount of recovery in a PAGA action is based on the number of pay periods in which violations of the Labor Code have taken place with respect to each aggrieved employee.

California law prohibits “use it or lose it” vacation policies. Under the California Labor Code (Section 227.3), employers must pay terminated employees all accrued vacation, “unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement.” Examining the meaning of the collective-bargaining-agreement exception for the first time, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employer is liable for unpaid pro rata vacation where its agreement with the union did not “clearly and unmistakably waive” the employees’ rights under Section 227.3. Choate v. Celite Corp., No. B239160 (Cal. Ct. App. May 2, 2013). However, the Court reversed judgment imposing waiting time penalties against the employer because it found the employer did not act willfully.