Search hawkins

As Congress approaches a funding lapse resulting in a government shutdown, California employers should prepare for several indirect effects on workplace operations. Although a federal shutdown does not halt California’s employment laws, it does pause many federal agency functions, as discussed below.

Federal Enforcement Agencies

Most federal labor agencies will furlough staff and suspend routine enforcement during a shutdown. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will furlough over 11,000 employees, which includes investigators from the Wage and Hour Division. Similarly, OSHA will cut nearly all inspectors and cease all non-emergency inspections. The EEOC will furlough a significant portion of its staff, halting charge investigations. The NLRB will pause new union elections and most hearings.

In practice, this means complaints or audits under FLSA, OSHA, NLRA, etc., will be delayed until funds are appropriated. Employers should note that California agencies and laws remain fully in force, so actions before the California Civil Rights Department, Labor Commissioner, and DLSE will remain mostly unaffected.

Immigration and Employment Verification Delays

A shutdown halts DOL’s immigration-related processes. All foreign labor certifications, such as PERM, and Labor Condition Applications for H-1B, H-2B and E-3 visas stop until funding is restored. Employers who rely on these visas or green-card sponsorship should file any time-sensitive applications before a lapse. USCIS itself is fee-funded and will mostly continue, but its system and E-Verify/I-9 reviews are funded by appropriations and will be inaccessible while the shutdown is in effect.

Regardless, employers should still complete Form I-9s for new hires, but enrolled companies cannot run new e-Verify cases or queries during the shutdowns. U.S. embassies generally remain open for visa processing (since visas are fee-funded), but some consular posts may slow routine cases if they reserve funds are exhausted.

Federal Contracting and Notice Requirements

Businesses with federal contracts should review funding clauses and potential layoff rules. If a contract is paused or canceled, employers may need to provide WARN notices. Under the federal WARN Act, a “mass layoff” or “plant closing” requires 60 days’ notice, although a shutdown’s duration may be uncertain. Critically, California’s mini-WARN Act is even broader, and requires advance notice of a temporary shutdown in some instances. Thus, any California employer – federal contractor or not – should consider whether temporary work stoppages or furloughs trigger notice under WARN laws.  Federally contracted employers should also check collective‐bargaining agreements and contract clauses for any mandated procedures during lapses in funding.

Wage-and-Hour and Furlough Compliance

Employers also at times respond to shutdowns by instituting paid leave or furloughs. However, employers should keep in mind that California’s wage-and-hour laws still apply during these periods. For furloughed hourly, non-exempt employees, they must only be paid for hours actually worked. Salaried exempt employees, however, are more constrained: under the FLSA and California law, if an exempt worker performs any work in a workweek, they must receive their full weekly salary.

California employers should also be aware of reporting requirements for furloughs of at least three weeks. Specifically, the Court in Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. NASSCO Holdings, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1118 held that furloughs of at least three weeks can trigger an employer’s reporting obligations under CalWARN.

Thus, employers should carefully plan any partial-week furloughs for exempt staff, or alternatively give written instructions to ensure exempt employees do not perform any work during unpaid weeks. Employers should also consider California’s Paid Sick Leave law when altering schedules.

Union and Collective‐Bargaining Effects

A shutdown also does not relieve employers of collective‐bargaining obligations. The NLRB will likely suspend new union representation elections and most unfair labor practice

processing, but existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) remain in force. If layoffs, furloughs or schedule changes affect unionized employees, employers must still negotiate effects and give required notices under the NLRA and any applicable CBA. And of course, any violations during the shutdown may be enforced if and when federal funding resumes.

Relatedly, California’s governor recently signed into law AB 288, a statute that allows California’s Public Employee Relations Board to certify unions and resolve labor disputes in the private sector when the NLRB has “expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction.” California’s PERB will consider the NLRB to cede jurisdiction when the full board sits on a case for over a year, when the board cannot render a decision due to its lack of a quorum, when a case languishes before an NLRB judge for over six months and when an NLRB official fails to certify a union within six months of workers voting yes on union representation. The law does not go into effect until January 1, 2026.

State-Unemployment and Employee Benefits

State unemployment insurance (UI) systems are unaffected by a federal shutdown. Furloughed or temporarily laid-off employees may generally apply for California UI benefits as usual.

Employers should anticipate standard state reporting obligations for any terminations or reduced hours. Health and retirement plan obligations continue; for example, reduced hours or termination may trigger COBRA notice requirements under federal law (but COBRA administration itself is not affected by a shutdown).

Conclusion

In sum, the federal government’s shutdown mainly delays federal agency actions rather than changing California employers’ core obligations.

To the extent possible, employers should file time-sensitive immigration or labor applications before a shutdown, communicate promptly with staff about any furloughs or pay changes, and review federal versus California notice and wage rules before implementing workforce adjustments.

In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California Court of Appeal answered a question that many California employers may not have known even needed to be answered—whether California employees can prospectively waive their mandatory meal periods.  Given the almost universal use of such waivers by employers (based on the assumption that the waivers are revocable, not unconscionable, and free of coercion), the Court’s ruling had the potential to create significant exposure to employers up and down the Golden State.  Fortunately, however, the Court of Appeal confirmed the legality of these waivers thereby allowing their continued use. 

California law guarantees employees a 30-minute, off-duty meal period after five work hours and a second meal period after 10 work hours.  The question before the Court concerned the laws providing for waivers of these meal periods in certain circumstances.  Specifically, the law (California Labor Code section 512) provides that, for shifts between five and six hours, the first meal period “may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.”  Many employers have interpreted this to allow a one-time written waiver signed at the time of hire instead of requiring employees to execute this waiver on a shift-by-shift basis.  But until Bradsbery, no published appellate decision had confirmed the legality of this approach. 

The facts in Bradsbery were simple.  Plaintiff La Kimba Bradsbery (“Bradsbery”) worked as a veterinary technician for Vicar Operating, Inc. (“Vicar”), from September 2008 through February 2011.  In April 2009, Bradsbery signed a written waiver stating:

I hereby voluntarily waive my right to a meal break when my shift is 6 hours or less.  I understand that I am entitled to take an unpaid 30-minute meal break within my first five hours of work; however, I am voluntarily waiving that meal break.  I understand that I can revoke this waiver at any time by giving written revocation to my manager.

In July 2014, Bradsbery filed a putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that Vicar had failed to provide statutorily mandated meal periods for shifts between five and six hours.  Specifically, Bradsbery argued that Vicar’s meal period waivers were improper and should have been secured on a shift-by-shift basis.

The trial court rejected Bradsbery’s argument and she appealed.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on the grounds that plaintiff’s interpretation was supported by neither the text of the relevant statutes and orders nor the legislative and administrative history.  The Court also rejected Bradsbery’s reliance on both (1) a prior decision by the California Supreme Court and (2) an opinion letter issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

In the end, the Court of Appeal’s decision does not change much.  Employers may continue to use prospective, written meal period waivers for their employees.  To maximize enforceability, California employers should ensure that each waiver satisfies the following requirements:

  • The waiver is in writing and in a stand-alone document;
  • The waiver is secured voluntarily, noting that the employee’s execution is optional;
  • The waiver is revocable at any time by either the employee or the employer;
  • The waiver specifies the types of shifts employees may waive meal periods for; and
  • The waiver is signed by the employee.

As always, this case is an important reminder that California employers can never take anything for granted but greatly appreciate the wins when they come.   

On January 21, 2025, the White House announced an Executive Order entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”  The Order instructs federal agencies to take administrative and legal action against diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs, which it defines as systems of race- and sex-based preferences.  The Order is directed at both public- and private-sector conduct.

Private employers and educational institutions with DEI policies should consider consulting with an employment law practitioner to ensure those policies can withstand any legal challenges, including under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The Order directs the U.S. Attorney General and the heads of agencies to propose a strategic plan to identify key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction and “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern,” as well as “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

Further, participants in federal programs must be highly attentive to changes in agency guidance, rules, and contract language, because the Order directs agency program changes and expressly contemplates use of the False Claims Act as an enforcement tool.  Of particular note is that the Order directs that each agency include in all contracts and grant awards (1) a term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of the False Claims Act, and (2) a term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.  This means that the Administration is already thinking that the Department of Justice, or individual private citizens acting as qui tam relators, might bring False Claims Act cases against federal program participants whose DEI policies are inconsistent with the Administration’s interpretation of federal anti-discrimination laws.  A federal program participant that violates the False Claims Act can face severe financial penalties, including three times the value of claims submitted, plus a civil penalty per claim.

Today is too soon to know where this will lead.  Private-sector actors would be well served to pay close attention to risks related to their policies and relationships with federal agencies.

On January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, holding that the “preponderance of the evidence” is the applicable standard courts must use to analyze whether an exemption is proper under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In practical terms, this means employers must demonstrate it is more likely than not that an employee qualifies for an exemption, rather than meeting a stricter burden of proof.

This decision resolves a split among lower courts and provides clarity on the burden of proof in exemption disputes. Employers should carefully review their employee classifications to ensure compliance. Click here to read our insight into the facts of the case, how the Court reached this decision, and how employers should react to this ruling. If you have any additional questions, please contact your labor and employment attorney.

As 2025 approaches, employers in Oregon, Washington, and California must prepare for several updates in employment laws. Here’s a concise overview of the most impactful changes that take effect on January 1, 2025:

Oregon

  1. Paid Leave Oregon Clarification: Employees can now use Paid Leave Oregon benefits to attend legal proceedings related to foster care or adoption. OFLA will no longer provide additional leave for these reasons.
  2. Warehouse Worker Protections: New rules mandate employers provide written documentation of quotas to warehouse employees upon hire or upon changes to the quotas. Employers that fail to comply with these rules may not take adverse actions against employees if quotas aren’t met.
  3. Agricultural Overtime: Employers must pay overtime to agricultural workers after 48 hours worked per week.
  4. Additional Updates: Changes to garnishment exemptions and a mid-year minimum wage increase.

Washington

  1. Minimum Wage Increase: Minimum wage rises to $16.66/hour statewide, with higher local rates (e.g., Seattle at $20.76/hour). Salary thresholds for exemptions also increase.
  2. Expanded Paid Sick Leave: New coverage includes ride-share drivers and additional reasons for protected leave, such as emergencies and care for non-family dependents.
  3. Healthcare Overtime Ban: Hospitals can no longer mandate overtime for most direct care staff, with some exceptions.
  4. Meal Period Compliance: A new court ruling mandates higher penalties for missed meal periods. The case, Androckitis v. Virginia Mason Medical Center[MH1] [MH2] [KJ3] , is pending discretionary review before the Washington Supreme Court.

California

  1. Minimum Wage Updates: Statewide increase to $16.50/hour, with higher thresholds for specific industries (e.g., healthcare workers at $24/hour starting July).
  2. Expanded Sick Leave: New permissible uses include emergencies like wildfire and crime-related incidents.
  3. Freelance Worker Protection: Written contracts are now required, and payment timelines are strictly enforced.
  4. PAGA Reforms: Stricter standing requirements and a process for employers to address and cure alleged Labor Code violations.
  5. Anti-Discrimination and Leave Enhancements: New FEHA provisions on intersectionality and jury duty protections.

Key Takeaways

  • Action Required: Review and update employee handbooks, payroll systems, and compliance protocols to meet new wage, leave, and worker protection standards.
  • Plan for Transition: Ensure proactive communication with managers and employees about policy changes.
  • Monitor Compliance: With penalties and stricter enforcement mechanisms in place, employers should prioritize adherence to new laws to avoid costly infractions.

Click here to read the entire article, including detailed insights and resources to help your organization stay compliant in 2025.

A few weeks ago, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced a bill to implement a 32-hour workweek.  While such a law is a long way from becoming a reality, it does raise interesting questions concerning exactly what a 32-hour workweek would look like, especially in California.

Before engaging in this thought experiment one thing should be made clear – most jurisdictions in the United States are “at-will” employment states, meaning either party has the ability to terminate the employment relationship for any lawful purpose.  Relatedly, employers have the ability to schedule employees to work any schedule they want with very few exceptions in discrete instances.  As such, employers would generally not be required to only schedule employees to work a maximum of 32 hours during any workweek, but rather would be disincentivized to do so through overtime requirements.

Federal law currently requires that all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek be paid at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. California adds an additional requirement that any hours worked in excess of eight hours in a single workday must be paid at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, and any hours worked in excess of 12 hours in a workday be paid at twice the employee’s regular rate of pay.

The proposed method of implementing a 32-hour workweek would be through reducing the overtime hours threshold from 40 hours to 32 hours, meaning that employees working over 32 hours in a workweek would be entitled to overtime pay.  While Senator Sanders’ bill does not prohibit employers from scheduling employees to work 40 hours or more, it would provide a financial disincentive for employers to do so.  Senator Sanders’s bill would also amend federal law to coincide with California’s 8 hour and 12 hour overtime rules, making overtime significantly more expensive for employers across the United States.

What would this mean for California employers?  For one, California’s legislature generally does not like being one-upped in terms of favorable employee laws.  As such, and if a law reducing the federal workweek were passed, it is almost guaranteed that California would also reduce its weekly overtime threshold from 40 hours to 32 hours (if not less).  Moreover, under a 32-hour workweek, an employee would be working an average of 6.4 hours per day.  Given this, one possible outcome is that California reduces its daily overtime threshold to be more consistent with that reduced workweek – possibly to six hours per day.

Going further, California law currently provides that employees are entitled to one meal break before the end of the fifth hour of work and a second meal break after 10 hours of work and two paid 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked.  This break schedule could be modified if a reduced workweek were put into place – possibly with a first meal break before the end of the fourth hour of work, a second meal break after nine hours, and a paid rest break for every three hours of work.

Reducing the workweek could also cause changes in other employee benefits, including protected leaves.  For example, employees are entitled to 12-weeks of leave under both the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and under California’s Family Rights Act (“CFRA”).  In order to be eligible for these types of leave, an employee must have worked at least 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months.  Under a 40-hour workweek, an employee would work approximately 2,080 hours a year, meaning that they would have a FMLA/CFRA cushion of roughly 830 hours.  A reduction in the workweek from 40 to 32 hours would result in 1,664 hours per year and a reduced “cushion” of 414 hours.  As this likely does not comport with the intent of these statutes, it’s possible that the FMLA hours requirement would be reduced and almost guaranteed that California would reduce its CFRA threshold.

As for effects on workplace policies, one significant change employers would need to make is revising their paid leave policies. Given the reduction in hours worked, employers would need to revise the rates at which employees accrue paid time-off to ensure accrual rates line up with the new proposed workweek.

The 40-hour workweek has been the hallmark of employment law for more than 80 years.  While a change anytime soon is unlikely, it’s always good for employers, especially California employers, to be prepared for anything. 

On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills to decide the question of whether California trial courts have inherent authority to strike claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on the grounds that the claims were not manageable.  The Court ultimately upheld the appellate court’s holding, which we previously discussed in detail here, finding that trial courts do not have such inherent authority.

Continue Reading California Supreme Court Sweeps PAGA Manageability Under the Rug in <em>Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills</em>

Introduction

With its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Adolph”) the California Supreme Court has reignited the debate surrounding arbitration agreements containing waivers of an employee’s right to bring a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  This ruling, which challenges the earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (“Viking River Cruises”), marks a significant shift back in favor of employees and their ability to pursue PAGA claims notwithstanding the existence of a written waiver. 

Continue Reading Driving the Narrative: California Supreme Court’s <em>Adolph v. Uber Technologies</em> Decision Shifts Gears, Challenging U.S. Supreme Court’s <em>Viking River Cruises v. Moriana</em> Holding

On September 18, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2188 into law, which prohibits employers from taking any adverse employment action against an employee in conjunction with an employee’s off-duty marijuana use.

AB 2188 makes it unlawful for employers to “discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment” for any of the following reasons:

  • An employee’s use of cannabis and cannabis products off the job and away from work; or
  • Failing an employer-mandated drug screening for having “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or body fluids.”

If an employer wishes to punish an employee for marijuana-related conduct, it must show the employee was either in possession of or under the influence of marijuana while in the workplace.

For employers that rely on drug screenings to identify marijuana use, this means employers must reevaluate how they conduct screenings and use tests that differentiate between an employee who is currently under the influence of marijuana versus one who previously used marijuana.

In this article, we review California’s long history of regulating the use, production, and sale of marijuana; analyze the effect AB 2188 has on California employers; and briefly discuss immediate steps employers may take to continue promoting a drug- and alcohol-free workplace.

Brief History of Cannabis Legislation in California

California has always been at the forefront of introducing legislation to legalize and regulate the sale and use of cannabis.  The first of many California laws enacted to address cannabis use was Senate Bill 95, known as the “Moscone Act.”  Enacted in 1976, the Moscone Act was the first pierce of legislation that decriminalized marijuana use in California, and effectively eliminated prison sentences for minor offenders.  This bill was seen as revolutionary in that it was one of the first times a state successfully introduced legislation in an attempt to reduce the stigma of marijuana use.

The next and arguably most revolutionary California law on cannabis is Proposition (Prop) 215, nicknamed the “Compassionate Use Act” (CUA).  Prop 215 was a voter-initiated law that allowed for the use of medical cannabis pursuant to a valid physician’s recommendation.  Prop 215 not only allowed patients and caregivers to possess cannabis for personal medical use, but it also permitted certain patients to cultivate cannabis as well, the first time consumers were given the ability to do so.  However, as discussed further below, the CUA was not seen as having any effect on California’s employment laws, nor did it require employers to accommodate marijuana use for current or prospective employees.

After Prop 215 was enacted into law, California started taking steps to regulate physicians prescribing medical cannabis.  In 2015, California passed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, a set of three bills that set standards for physicians prescribing medical cannabis, instituted regulations on marijuana cultivation, and mandated reporting of movement of commercial cannabis products.

Finally, in 2016 California took the biggest step in cannabis legislation when it passed Prop 64, where California legalized nonmedicinal use of cannabis products for consumers 21 years of age or older.  Prop 64 also further decriminalized marijuana use in that individuals arrested for selling marijuana would no longer be charged with a felony with some exceptions.

Evolution of Marijuana Use and the Workplace

Although cannabis use gradually became more widespread and acceptable over the years, California courts still preserved employers’ ability to maintain stringent rules regarding drugs and alcohol in the workplace.  For instance, in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications,[1] the California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an employee who failed to pass a drug test as a prerequisite for employment with defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.  Although the employee was using marijuana pursuant to a presumably valid prescription from his physician issued under the CUA, the Court found that nothing in the CUA “intended … to change employment law,” and maintained that employers may continue requiring preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions.

The Court’s opinion in Ross allowed employers to breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of all the marijuana legislation passed in California.  However, this sigh of relief proved to be brief after the passage of Prop 64 and legalization of recreational marijuana use.  Under Labor Code § 96(k), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee for engaging in otherwise lawful off-duty conduct.  For the longest time, this code section was interpreted as prohibiting employers from stopping employees from holding outside employment.  With California legalizing recreational marijuana, employers were put in a hazy position with respect to restrictions on employee marijuana use.

While employers could still prohibit on-duty and workplace use and possession of marijuana, the ambiguity came where the employee would test positive for marijuana, but claimed it came from off-duty use.

California’s Passage of AB 2188 and Effects on the Workplace

In a supposed effort to clear up confusion and provide additional protections to California employees, California passed AB 2188 to prohibit employers from punishing employees for truly off-duty use of cannabis.  Specifically, AB 2188 prohibits employers from punishing employees for the following: (1) using cannabis and cannabis products off the job and away from work; and (2) failing an employer-mandated drug screening for having nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or body fluids.

Prior to the passage of AB 2188, employers that screened potential or current employees for drugs, either as a condition of employment or due to reasonable suspicion that the employee was under the influence, would do so through hair, urine, or blood tests.  However, most of these tests would not distinguish between an employee’s current impairment or past use given how long cannabis remains in one’s system.

Screenings for marijuana may show traces of cannabis from use that took place weeks before the actual screening.  This is due in part to the lingering presence of “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites,” which according to the legislature has “no correlation to impairment on the job.”  Now, employers may take an adverse employment action against an employee only for impairment on the job or at the time of the drug screening, but may not do so only for testing positive for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites.

Recognizing the fact that marijuana is still considered illegal under federal law, AB 2188 expressly exempts jobs that require federal clearance or background screening, any job that is statutorily subject to federal drug testing requirements, and certain building/construction trades.

Preparing for AB 2188 Moving Forward

As one can imagine, AB 2188 adds another layer of difficulty for employers to do business in California. Failure to comply with AB 2188 may result in employers being subjected to claims for discrimination or retaliation.  If a claimant were to succeed on these claims, the employer would potentially be liable for damages in the form of lost or future wages, emotional distress damages, statutory penalties, and attorney fees.

With AB 2188 going into effect on January 1, 2024, employers must take the following steps to ensure compliance with AB 2188:

  • Evaluate any policies and procedures regarding drugs and alcohol in the workplace with experienced legal counsel to ensure drug screenings are administered properly; and
  • Review how drug screenings are administered to ensure any drug tests take into consideration psychoactive cannabis metabolites to guarantee employees are not punished for off-duty marijuana consumption.

[1] 42 Cal. 4th 920 (2008).

On June 28, 2018, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).  The CCPA provided significant privacy rights and protections to California consumers and placed numerous obligations on California businesses regarding the collection and sale of personal information belonging to California consumers.  While the CCPA constituted a significant change for California businesses, its effect on California employers was limited.  Specifically, the CCPA essentially only required most California employers to (1) provide notices when they collected personal information from their employees and (2) protect any collected personal information.

All of that changed in 2020 when California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).  The CPRA expands the CCPA and, for the first time, places significant obligations on California employers, which obligations go into effect on January 1, 2023.

The CPRA provides consumers (which includes employees and job applicants) with five basic rights:

  • Right to know what personal information is collected
  • Right to know what personal information is sold and/or shared
  • Right to request that businesses delete their personal information
  • Right to request that businesses correct any incorrect personal information
  • Right to opt out of selling and/or sharing their personal information

A few things for California employers to keep in mind:

First, the CPRA generally only applies to California businesses that collect the personal information of consumers and that either (1) had annual gross revenues in excess of $25,000,000 in the preceding calendar year, (2) buy, sell, or share the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers, or (3) derive 50% or more of their annual revenues from selling or sharing consumers’ personal information.

Second, and beginning January 1, 2023, the more onerous duties contained in the CPRA will apply to employers who collect personal information from their employees and job applicants.

Third, failure to comply with the CPRA could result in enforcement actions being brought against employers by the California Privacy Protection Agency, the Attorney General, any District Attorney in any county in California, and the City Attorneys in the four largest cities in the state.

Based on this, California employers are strongly advised to immediately take steps to ensure they can comply by the January 1, 2023 deadline.  These steps should include (1) determining what personal information they are collecting from their employees and applicants and the reasons for such collection, (2) determining if they are selling or sharing any collected personal information (as those phrases are defined in the CPRA), and (3) preparing privacy policies and notices to post on their website, distribute to their current employees, and/or incorporate into their job application materials.