Articles about California Labor And Employment Law.

On September 30, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) No. 553, which requires virtually every California employer to take steps to prevent or respond to workplace violence.

On October 1, 2023, changes to the Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations that govern how employers can use information about criminal history in employment decisions go into effect, modifying California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 11017.1. These revised regulations add to the already long list of procedures that must be followed in California when using criminal history as a basis for rejecting an applicant or taking other adverse actions against an applicant or employee. An overview of the requirements can be found here.

California employers should be extremely cautious about timely paying arbitration fees or could pay the price – waiving their right to arbitrate and having to proceed in court.

The California Legislature and courts have long been hostile to arbitration agreements. In 2019, the California Legislature amended the California Arbitration Act to include a provision that if the party that drafted an arbitration agreement (almost always the employer) fails to pay the fees or costs required to continue the arbitration proceeding “within 30 days after the due date” the drafting party “is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration and waives its right to compel the employee” to proceed with arbitration. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. 1281.98(a)(1)). Under the Act, that means that when the employer “breaches the agreement” by failing to make payments on time, the employee may withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in court.

A recent California Appellate Court decision shows just how strictly courts may construe the requirement that fees be paid “within 30 days after the due date”. In Doe v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, (First App. Dist., Div. 3, 9/8/23), the court found that “paid” within 30 days after the due date meant “received by the arbitrator” within 30 days after the due date. (emphasis in original). In Doe, September 1, 2022, was the “due date”, so the fees had to be paid by October 3rd. The employer put a check for the fees in the mail on Friday, September 30th for the full amount due that Monday. However, the payment was not received until October 5th, two days after the 30-day period expired. The court reasoned that “the proverbial check in the mail” does not constitute payment, and the fees are not considered “paid” under the statute until they are received by the arbitrator.

When the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) was enacted, it created the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and delegated to the CPPA significant regulatory authority. One of the areas of that authority is cybersecurity, which includes performing cybersecurity audits annually. On September 8, 2023, the CPPA considered a draft set

Join us on September 26 for a comprehensive webinar hosted by CDF as we delve into the crucial subject of arbitrating PAGA claims, exploring its implications following the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Adolph v. Uber. Partners Corey Cabral, Chair of CDF’s PAGA Litigation Practice, and Sander van der Heide, will guide attendees through the intricacies of this decision, offering invaluable insights and strategies that California employers need to stay informed and compliant with evolving labor laws.

In this webinar, you can expect:

In-Depth Analysis: Gain a thorough understanding of the Adolph v. Uber ruling and its far-reaching consequences for PAGA claims arbitration, including the impact on class action waivers.
Practical Guidance: Learn best practices for navigating PAGA claims within the context of the Adolph decision, including strategies for minimizing legal risks.
Legal Perspective: Hear directly from our seasoned attorneys who will provide real-world examples and case studies to illustrate the application of Adolph in different employment scenarios.
Interactive Q&A: Get your specific questions answered by our legal team during the live Q&A session.
Key Takeaways: Discover why California employers should pay close attention to the Adolph v. Uber decision and how it affects their labor law compliance strategies.
Don’t miss out on this opportunity to stay ahead of the curve in understanding the latest developments in PAGA claims arbitration and the broader implications for your business. Join us on September 26 and ensure your organization reduces its potential litigation risk, cost, and exposure from PAGA claims.

CA MCLE, SHRM and HRCI credit pending.

On September 11, 2023, the coalition of California businesses announced its agreement with labor unions to withdraw their referendum challenging Assembly Bill (AB) 257, which created the FAST Recovery Act, from next year’s ballot.

Last year, Governor Newsom signed AB 257. The Act established a Fast Food Council comprising fast

By: Governor Newsom Signs New Executive Order to Guide California’s Regulation of Artificial Intelligence 

By: Governor Newsom Signs New Executive Order to Guide California’s Regulation of Artificial Intelligence 

Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to tackle the new field of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). As technology develops and changes,

Bill pending in the California legislature would implement the following if signed into law:

In this episode, Jen reminds you to choose law-related vendors familiar with California’s many idiosyncrasies.

By: New Golden State Law To Create Gold Rush Litigation Testing Non-Compete Agreements

For over two decades, California law concluded non-compete agreements are not enforceable in the context of employment, Edwards v. Anderson, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008) and even created a public policy claim against employers assisting the enforcement of out-of-state non-compete

On September 1, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 699 into law, prohibiting employers from entering into or attempting to enforce noncompete agreements, which are void under state law. Meanwhile, another bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 1076, which would reinforce the state’s broad ban on noncompete agreements, nears

A new state law (SB 699) extends the reach of California’s restriction on non-competes to contracts signed out of state. SB 699 creates a private right of action for employees whose agreements include restrictive covenants and provides for attorney fees for any current, former, or even prospective employee who

As the September 14, 2023, deadline to pass bills during the current session of the California Legislature fast approaches, the California Senate and Assembly are considering several employment law bills. Many are likely to pass. Below is a summary of some of the more significant bills.

On August 28, 2023, California State Senator Dave Cortese (D-15) announced last-minute amendments to Senate Bill (SB) No. 553. SB 553, if enacted, would require virtually every employer in California to adopt comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, starting on July 1, 2024.