On October 5, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 450. With the passage of this bill, California becomes the first state in the nation to enact a law prohibiting employers from providing voluntary assistance to immigration enforcement agents during workplace investigations.
Earlier this year, U.S. immigration authorities conducted a series of high-profile raids of
An employer who unfairly and inaccurately is slammed by a former employee (or maybe even a current employee!) on a job-posting or employer-rating website will often look to its lawyer for help. Surely the law protects against outrageous false statements that harm the employer’s ability to recruit new talent? Maybe not—and if there is, it isn’t easy. The websites that provide the platform for these posts are immune from liability under the federal Communications Decency Act, and most courts have put up substantial roadblocks to enforcement of a subpoena targeted at getting the names of the anonymous posters. But California now may be leading the way in bringing some sanity to this murky area of the law.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Puts a Small Crack in the Glass Door
In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the California Supreme Court answered three questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning California’s “day of rest” statutes. The Court’s decision clarifies a significant ambiguity for employers regarding the obligation to provide employees with their statutorily mandated day of rest.
Mendoza involved a putative class action filed by former Nordstrom employees alleging Nordstrom violated California’s Labor Code by failing to provide them with one day of rest in seven and causing them to work more than six in seven days. After the district court granted summary judgment in Nordstrom’s favor, plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies California’s Day of Rest Statutes
In Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that employers are prohibited from implementing “on-call” rest breaks. This holding led the Supreme Court to reinstate an approximately $90 million judgment against the defendant employer.
The plaintiff in Augustus worked as a security guard for defendant. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that
On September 12, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1066. The bill, which is the first of its kind in the nation, will entitle California farmworkers to the same overtime pay as most other hourly workers in California.
California law defines employees “employed in an agricultural occupation” broadly to include any employment relating to the cultivation or harvesting of agricultural commodities; the raising, feeding, and management of livestock; or the maintenance and improvement of a farm and/or farm equipment. Prior to the signing of AB 1066, such employees were entitled to time-and-a-half pay after working 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week. This is substantially different from the overtime laws for other California employees, where overtime pay typically kicks in after eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.
Continue Reading Expanding Overtime to Farmworkers: Will California Start a Trend?
In DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, a decision released this week, the United States Supreme Court rejected the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a binding arbitration provision that would have rendered unenforceable a class arbitration waiver provision. In doing this, the Supreme Court once again affirmed the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the invalidity of attempts by state courts to limit the enforceability of class arbitration waiver provisions.
DIRECTV involved a claim by consumers that DIRECTV’s early termination fees violate California law. The service agreement at issue in the action provided that any claims would be resolved by binding arbitration. The agreement contained a class arbitration waiver but provided that if the “laws of your state” made the waiver unenforceable, then the entire arbitration provision “is unenforceable.” The lawsuit was filed in 2008, prior to the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion holding that the FAA preempted California case law deeming class arbitration waiver provisions unenforceable.Continue Reading United States Supreme Court Once Again Rejects California’s Attempt To Void Class Arbitration Waivers
* October 11, 2015 Update: Governor Brown announced he has vetoed AB 465
On August 27, 2015, the California Assembly approved AB 465. The bill, which was approved by the California Senate on August 24, would prohibit California employers from requiring most individuals to enter into arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.
Background checks can provide California employers with vital information concerning their employees. In order to protect individual privacy rights, however, the California legislature has created two separate laws governing the procedure for such checks: the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), which generally governs reports concerning “character information,” and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed AB 1897 thereby creating new liability for businesses that engage in labor contracting. Current California law prohibits employers from entering into labor or services contracts with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, security guard, or warehouse contractor, if the employer knows or should know that the agreement does not
The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. was simple. When employees must use their personal cell phones for work, California law requires employers to reimburse them, regardless of whether the cell phone plans are for limited or unlimited minutes. This decision, however, could have a wide ranging impact on California employment law.
The plaintiff in Cochran sought to bring a class action lawsuit against his employer based on his employer’s alleged failure to reimburse him and similarly situated employees for use of their personal cell phones for work-related calls. The superior court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification, finding that the claim was not suitable for class treatment because individual issues predominated. Specifically, the superior court reasoned that the defendant employer’s liability to prospective class members depended on individual factual issues such as whether employees paid for the cell phone plan themselves, whether employees purchased different cell phone plans because of their work cell phone usage, or whether employees suffered any “actionable expenditure or loss,” i.e., loss of cell phone minutes.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules Employers Must Reimburse Employees For Work Calls on Personal Cell Phones