Photo of Bryan Hawkins

Bryan Hawkins Bryan Hawkins is a litigator practicing in the firm's Labor & Employment group with extensive jury and bench-trial experience in representing employers in employment-related litigation in court and before administrative agencies. such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His practice also involves counseling employers on employment-related issues, including handbooks and policies. Bryan also provides counseling on labor issues, such as advising employers on how to effectively respond to union organizing campaigns, negotiate collective bargaining agreements, and manage the employer/union relationship. In addition, Bryan’s practice includes litigating complex commercial disputes in areas such as antitrust, business torts, and real estate.

Click here for Bryan Hawkins' full bio.

In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court determined that the phrases “regular rate of compensation” and “regular rate of pay” are synonymous for the purposes of California Labor Code section 226.7(c) and the California Industrial Wage Orders.  With this seemingly innocuous ruling, however, the Supreme Court has handed a potentially

Please note: The information below is based on what we know today, and that rules and regulations are literally changing daily. Employers need to be nimble and flexible – check your local rules on a daily basis.

As more and more people receive the COVID-19 vaccine, employees are starting to ask questions about mask requirements. 

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

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:

  • 78% discuss politics at work;
  • 47% said the discussion of politics negatively impacted their performance;
  • 33% take in more political news at

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