On March 19, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 95 (“SB 95”) which entitles most California employees to a new bank of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. The law will go into effect on March 29, 2021.
California’s prior law entitling workers to COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave expired on December 31, 2020
The California Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (“Sullivan”) and its more recent decisions in Ward v. United Airlines (“Ward”) and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Oman”) provided employers with a certain amount of clarity in regard to non-California residents working within the State on
On November 20, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standard Board adopted temporary regulations regarding measures that employers must undertake in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. On November 30, those regulations went into effect and are set to be in place for at least 180 days. California employers must
The public health crisis caused by COVID-19 has caused lawmakers up and down California to consider new and previously unheard of ways to protect employees. While most of these methods have involved protections for existing employees, many jurisdictions are considering ways to protect employees who have lost work for reasons related to COVID-19. One of
The 2020 presidential election, coupled with nationwide civil unrest and a global pandemic, is creating a lot of conversation in employees’ personal and professional lives. In a February 2020 survey, employees reported:
California Assembly Bill 1867 (signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2020) and Senate Bill 1383 (signed on September 17, 2020) significantly expand the rights of California employees to both paid and unpaid leave. In addition, and especially as they relate to Senate Bill 1383, these laws will require California employers to promptly
Last year, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, which signaled a seismic shift in the way California employers classify workers as either independent contractors or employees. On September 4, 2020, Governor Newsom signed AB 2257, which modifies (slightly) some of the rules and provisions of AB 5.
To recap, AB 5 codified the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex. In Dynamex, the Supreme Court rejected the multifactor test set forth in S.G. Borello & Songs, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations for classifying workers and announced a new, more objective standard for determining worker classification for the purposes of the California wage orders. Under this new standard, the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor who was not intended to be included within the coverage of the California wage orders. In order to satisfy this burden, the hiring entity must establish all of the following: (1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of work, (2) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Continue Reading California Modifies the ABC Test – But It Doesn’t Really Help
In yet another effort to adapt California law to the current pandemic, on May 6, 2020 California Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-62-20 (the “Order”). As it pertains to workers’ compensation benefits, the Order provides that any COVID-19 related illness of an employee shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of
On April 16, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-51-20 (the “Order”). Similar to laws recently enacted by local California jurisdictions, the Order entitles certain workers to paid leave for reasons related to COVID-19 who are otherwise ineligible for such paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).
As discussed here, FFCRA requires employers to provide employees with up to 80 hours of paid leave for reasons related to COVID-19. Notably, however, FFCRA excludes from its scope employees working for employers with 500 or more employees.
Since FFCRA’s enactment, numerous local jurisdictions have passed ordinances attempting to fill the gap left by FFCRA by requiring employers with 500 or more employees to provide paid leave for reasons related to COVID-19. This includes the cities of San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles.
While similar to those ordinances, the Order issued by Governor Newsom is different in that it applies to “Food Sector Workers” and “Hiring Entities.” Specifically, it provides that Hiring Entities are required to provide Food Sector Workers with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave (“COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave”) to the extent the workers are unable to work for any of the following reasons:
California is like every other state in that it does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off. Unlike in most other states, however, if an employer does provide employees with paid time off, then employees have a vested right in such time. What this means is that employers are prohibited from enacting “use it or lose it” paid time off policies. It also means that upon separation, California employers must pay out employees for any unused paid time off.
Due to these requirements, and to remain competitive with other employers, some employers have instituted “unlimited” paid time off policies whereby employees do not accrue any specific amount of vacation time but, rather, are free to take (or not take) as much (or as little) vacation as they want. The commonly held belief amongst most employers is that such unlimited paid time off policies benefit employees by providing them with flexible schedules while, at the same time, allowing employers to avoid the obligation to pay out any unused paid time off upon separation. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation (McPherson), the California Court of Appeal issued a shot across the bow to employers adhering to this commonly held belief by holding that the unlimited paid time off policy at issue did obligate the employer to pay out unused paid time off upon termination.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Issues Warning to Employers with Unlimited Paid Time Off Policies