Tuesday, January 8, 2019 – Sacramento, CA
Wednesday, January 23, 2019 – San Francisco, CA
Additional information and details for each session will be available December 3, 2018.
To reserve your space at one of these sessions, please email Ramona Carrillo at rcarrillo@weintraub.com.
Weintraub Tobin’s 2019 Labor and Employment Seminar and Training schedule is now available. Click here for a copy of the schedule.
If you have any questions on any of our seminars or would like to inquire on private, custom-tailored training, please contact:
Ramona Carrillo
(916) 558-6046
rcarrillo@weintraub.com
Mandatory AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training
The regulations regarding California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for supervisors require that certain employers provide training to their supervisors every two years.
The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin is offering a two hour in-person training session that will comply with all the requirements outlined in the regulations including things like:
If you are an employer with 50 or more employees, and have supervisors who have not yet been trained, this training is a must. We look forward to hearing from you and helping you comply with your continuing sexual harassment training obligations.
*Approved for two (2) hours MCLE (Elimination of Bias).
Supervisor Best Practices and Legal Compliance Training
Most employers know that it is crucial to have well trained supervisors to help ensure that rank and file employees perform their jobs effectively and efficiently. However, many employers don’t realize how important it is that supervisors be trained to understand the many employment laws that govern the workplace. Untrained supervisors can take actions (or fail to take actions) that result in significant legal consequences for an employer.
This one-hour training will cover topics like:
Date
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Training Program
AB 1825 Training: 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Supervisor Best Practices: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Location
Weintraub Tobin Office
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA
Cost
AB 1825 Training: $95/person
Supervisor Best Practices and Legal Compliance Training: $60/person
For questions or to register for this training, please contact Ramona Carrillo (rcarrillo@weintraub.com).
Well September 30, 2018 has come and gone. As my September 19, 2018 article indicated, that was the deadline for Governor Brown to either sign or veto a large number of employment-related bills passed by the California Legislature during the 2017-2018 Term. Out of the 21 employment-related bills I summarized in my September 19th article, 12 were signed into law, and 9 were vetoed. Below is a list of the new laws California employers must comply with, as well as a list of vetoed bills where employers dodged the bullet. To read the full article, please click here.
Bills Signed into Law.
Vetoed Bills.
Takeaway: California employers should evaluate the new employment laws discussed above as well as others that were passed, and take necessary steps to ensure compliance. The employment attorneys at Weintraub Tobin are happy to discuss the new laws and assist employers in complying with their legal obligations.
Beth West presenting at the Fall Family Business Forum for the Capital Region Family Business Center on October 10, 2018. Beth will be discussing the “Me Too” Topic and how it impacts family business.
For more information on this event, please visit: https://capfamilybus.org/events/fall-2018-family-business-forum/
The September 30th deadline for Governor Brown to act on numerous employment-related bills passed by the California Legislature during the 2017-2018 Legislative Term is fast approaching. This Blog summarizes only 21 of the more than 40 employment-related bills currently on the Governor’s desk. Employers are encouraged to stay tuned to see which bills become law and which ones don’t make the cut. NOTE: employment laws are constantly changing and employers must ensure that they make the necessary changes to policies and practices so that they are in compliance with current legal requirements.
To read the full article and summaries of each bill, please click here.
Summary of Program:
Wage and hour lawsuits and claims filed with the Department of Labor and the California Labor Commissioner continue to plague California employers. Often employers are sued because of technical violations that occur simply because the employer is unaware of its legal obligations. Other times, employers make the mistake of treating an employee as exempt from Wage Orders and Labor Code laws, when in fact the employee does not qualify.
This seminar will help employers understand and comply with wage and hour laws in California. In addition, this seminar will help employers, HR professionals, supervisors, and payroll managers gain a more thorough understanding of the various exemptions available under California law and learn how to conduct a legally strong exemption analysis.
Program Highlights:
Date:
September 12, 2018
Seminar Program:
8:30 am – 9:00 am – Registration & Breakfast
9:00 am – 12:00 pm – Seminar
Location:
Weintraub Tobin Office
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor | Sacramento, CA 95814
Parking Validation provided. Please park in the Wells Fargo parking garage, entrances on 4th and 5th Street. Please bring your ticket with you to the 11th floor for validation.
Cost:
There is no charge for this seminar.
Webinar:
This seminar is also available via webinar. Please indicate in your RSVP if you will be attending via webinar.
Approved for three (3) hours MCLE. This program will be submitted to the HR Certification Institute for review. Certificates will be provided upon verification of attendance for the entirety of the webcast.
*This seminar will be limited to 75 in-person attendees.
To register for this event, please email Ramona Carrillo at rcarrillo@weintraub.com.
On July 18, 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2282 which provides answers and clarifications to a number of questions employers had about the new law that went into effect in January 2018 (Assembly Bill 168 – codified in Labor Code section 432.3). Section 432.3 prohibits employers from relying on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer an applicant employment or what salary to offer an applicant, and also requires an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.
Since its enactment, employers were questioning the scope of the restrictions contained in Section 432.3, and their obligations in connection with disclosing pay scale information upon request. In order to answer some of those questions, AB 2282 does the following:
– “For purposes of this section, “pay scale” means a salary or hourly wage range.”
-“For purposes of this section “reasonable request” means a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer.”
Based on these definitions, employers now only have to provide a range of what the salary or hourly wage would be for a position rather than some fixed or guaranteed pay scale. Further, employers only have to provide this information to an applicant once he or she has completed an initial interview with the employer.
AB 2282 clarified that the law does not prohibit an employer from asking an applicant for his or her salary expectations. Specifically, AB 2282 states: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from asking an applicant about his or her salary expectation for the position being applied for.”
Takeaway: While AB 2282 provided some much needed clarification to the new law, employers must still be sure that anyone involved in the hiring process is aware of the restrictions contained in Section 432.3 in connection with an applicant’s prior salary history. The employment attorneys at Weintraub Tobin regularly counsel employers in all areas of employment law compliance, including wage and hour and equal pay issues. Feel free to contact us if we can be of assistance.
Under California law, an aggrieved person can bring a claim for defamation if the person is the subject of a false and unprivileged statement that is injurious to his/her reputation. Defamation can take the form of libel or slander. (Ca. Civ. Code Sec. 44.) Specifically “libel” is defined as a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. (Ca. Civ. Code Sec. 45.). Whereas, “slander” is defined as a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: (a) charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; (b) imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; (c) tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; (d) imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or (e) which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage. (Ca. Civ. Code Sec. 46.)
In recent years, a number of defamation lawsuits have been filed by individuals who have been accused of sexual harassment in the workplace in which the individuals claim that the accusations are false and injurious to their reputations. The concern of the California Legislature was that these defamation claims were having a chilling effect on victims of sexual harassment who may be afraid to come forward with their complaints. In response to the #MeToo and #WeSaidEnough movements demanding action to address the ongoing prevalence of sexual harassment, the California Senate Judiciary Committee, in conjunction with the Senate Select Committee on Women, Work and Families, held informational hearings in early 2018. In addition to reexamining the legal standards for sexual harassment in California, the hearings also addressed the issue of defamation claims being filed against victims of sexual harassment, and/or against employers and other witnesses involved in a sexual harassment investigation. As a result, legislation was introduced to modify defamation laws to help mitigate against this chilling effect.
On July 9, 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2770 which amends California Civil Code section 47 (re: privileged communications). The Senate Judiciary Committee’s June 16, 2018 analysis of the bill explains that AB 2770 codifies California defamation case law as it relates to allegations of workplace sexual harassment. Thus, the bill amends Civil Code section 47 to expressly provide that: (1) employees who report sexual harassment to their employer are not liable for any resulting injury to the alleged harasser’s reputation, so long as the communication is made based on credible evidence and without malice; (2) communications between employers and anyone with an interest in a sexual harassment complaint, such as victims and witnesses, are not liable for any resulting damage to the alleged harassers reputation, as long as the communication is made without malice; and (3) former employers are not liable for any resulting injury to a former employee’s reputation if, in response to inquiries from prospective employers, the former employers indicate that they would not rehire the former employee based on a determination that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment, so long as the statement is made without malice.
For purposes of defamation law, “malice” is defined as a defamatory publication that is either motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff, or where the defendant lacked reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the publication and therefore acted in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. (Schep v. Capitol One N.A. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1331; Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal 4th 683; see also California Civil Instructions (CACI) 1723).)
This change in the law will become effective January 1, 2019.
Back in December, Beth West informed our readers that the NLRB had issued new (and more realistic) guidelines for evaluating whether employment policies and rules violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). As a reminder, the NLRB issued a new two-prong test for determining if facially neutral employment policies could interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, evaluating: (1) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (2) the legitimate justifications associated with the rule. A full analysis of the case can be found here.
The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel recently issued a memorandum (the “Memo”) providing guidance as to how the NLRB will enforce workplace policies, in light of that decision. The Memo evaluates common workplace rules to assess whether or not such rules may be permissible, evaluating the rules under three main categories: (1) lawful to maintain; (2) warrant individualized scrutiny; and (3) unlawful to maintain.
Category 1: Rules that are Generally Lawful to Maintain.
According to the Memo, the “types of rules in this category are generally lawful, either because the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, or because the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by the business justifications associated with the rule.” The following rules were identified as being “generally lawful to maintain”:
Category 2: Rules that Warrant Individualized Scrutiny.
Category 2 rules are explained as rules that “are not obviously lawful or unlawful, and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the rule would interfere with rights guaranteed by the NLRA, and if so, whether any adverse impact on those rights is outweighed by legitimate justifications.” It lists possible examples of Category 2 rules to be:
Category 3: Rules that are Unlawful to Maintain.
The Memo states that “Rules in this category are generally unlawful because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on the rights guaranteed by the NLRA outweighs any justifications associated with the rule.” It specifically notes that (1) confidentiality rules specifically regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions; or (2) rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning the employer are prohibited.
Employers should review their employment policies to ensure compliance with this updated guidance. Weintraub’s Labor & Employment attorneys have extensive experience counseling and auditing employee handbooks. Please contact any member of our team for assistance in updating your policies.
Connect with Weintraub on LinkedIn
Follow Weintraub on Twitter
Like Weintraub on Facebook
Subscribe to this blog via RSS