The 12 days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 3 "Transgender Work Opportunity Act"

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the Third Day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – three French hens and SB 396. More ›

The 12 days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 2 "Salary History"

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law each day and the law's impact on California employers. On the Second Day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – two turtledoves and AB 168. More ›

The 12 days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 1 "Ban the Box"

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law each day and the law's impact on California employers. More ›

California Adds New Notice Requirement for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking Victims

Employers, another notice provision has taken effect in California. Beginning on July 1, 2017, employers with at least 25 employees must now provide written notice to new employees that explain the rights of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. More specifically, the required notice mandates employers notify new employees of their rights under Labor Code Sections 230 and 230.1. These sections detail the following points: More ›

California Court Allows Employee to Disaffirm Arbitration Agreement due to Age

We thought we'd heard everything! This is a new one, that's for sure. It's no secret that employees try to wiggle out of arbitration agreements all of the time. There are the usual digs: the agreement was buried in the middle of the documents, the font was too small, it didn't have the magic words, it requires the splitting of fees, etc. This case presents an entirely different type of argument, however. As demonstrated more fully below, in this case, the federal district court in California agreed with an employee that he was not bound by the arbitration agreement that he previously executed when he was a minor. More ›

Employer's "No Re-Hire" Provision may Violate California's Non-Compete Laws

Pretty much everyone knows that California courts do not favor covenants not to compete. We even have our own state laws that address this very issue (Business & Professions Code section 16600). But what about provisions in employment agreements, separation agreements, or even settlement agreements in which an employee agrees to give up his right to future employment with the company? Is that lawful? The Ninth Circuit just considered this very issue.  More ›

Oakland Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Requirements take Effect this Week

Employers in Oakland, California take note: A voter-approved measure raising Oakland's minimum wage and creating sick leave requirements for workers in the City went into effect this week. If you have employees in Oakland, review your policies and practices to make sure you are in compliance! More ›

Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act of 2014, California's Paid Sick Leave Law, to take Effect

—Starting July 1, 2015, California will join numerous other states in requiring employers provide employees with paid sick leave pursuant to the Health Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. More ›

California Employers Beware: cell Phones Present Another area for Class Action Potential

In August 2014, the California State Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Division 2) decided in Cochran v. Schawan's Home Service that employers were responsible for reimbursing employees for the business use of personal cell phones. Most cell phone users have unlimited minute plans so the question before the court was whether reimbursement was warranted even if the employee did not incur an extra expense. The answer: reimbursement is always required. The California Supreme Court has denied a petition to review this case so this holding stands. Employers with employees in the state of California should be mindful of this decision and take steps to implement policies which comply with the law (e.g., provide company cell phones, provide for reimbursement of actual cell phone usage for business-related calls, or provide a flat amount of reimbursement per month per employee).

Hinshaw attorneys are available to assist employers implement and enforce such policies.

California Supreme Court Issues key Arbitration Ruling

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, No. S174475 (October 17, 2013), holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California's rule categorically prohibiting waiver of a Berman hearing in a pre-dispute arbitration agreement imposed on an employee as a condition of employment. More ›