Employment Contracts and Agreements

Subscribe to Employment Contracts and Agreements via RSS

Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”) commonly referred to as the “Anti-DEI Order” (hereinafter simply referred to as the “Ex. Order”). Among other things, the Ex. Order directs federal agencies “to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” However, as pointed out by many legal commentators and at least one federal district court, the Ex. Order conspicuously does not define what constitutes an “illegal DEI preference or program.” Continue Reading The DOJ and EEOC Move Forward With Enforcement Of The President’s Executive Order 14173 (aka ANTI-DEI ORDER) 

If you followed California’s 2024 Legislative term, you know that Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”) was passed and signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 27, 2024.  For the most part, SB 399 has been described as a new “captive audience” law that prevents most, but not all, employers from taking any adverse action against an employee who declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting in which the employer or its agents discuss “political matters” or “religious matters.” The law came about during a time of great political division in the US, and was aimed at protecting an employee’s right to hold their own political and religious views, and be free of intimidation by their employer.Continue Reading You Can’t Make Me Go to that Meeting! CA Law Prohibits Adverse Action Against Employees Who Refuse to Go to Certain Meetings

Under California law, employers are prohibited from making, adopting, or enforcing policies that prevent an employee from disclosing violations of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal regulation to, among others, a government or law enforcement agency.  The law also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who makes such a disclosure.Continue Reading CA Labor Commissioner Issues New Whistleblower Notice

This article was first published in Volume 29, Issue 2, 2023 of the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, reprinted by permission.

I.      SYNOPSIS

Ed was a vibrant and healthy 85-year-old. One day, he decided to sign an advance healthcare directive providing that if his physical condition ever declined, he wished to remain in his home as long as possible with the help of live-in caregivers and other staff, as needed. Although his wife, Donna, and his daughter, Taylor, tried to assist Ed on their own, Ed’s growing needs became more than they could handle. They decided to bring in a live-in caregiver, Paula, who was a family friend. Paula was loosely hired by all three of them. Ed and his wife, Donna, were trustees of their family revocable trust. Taylor was Ed’s acting agent under his advance healthcare directive. No written employment agreement was signed by the parties. Paula was expected to work a “standard” workday, Monday through Friday, but was expected to be “on-call” during the evenings, weekends, and holidays. The family verbally agreed to pay Paula $500 per week, which was more than she made at her last job, so she felt she was adequately compensated. Moreover, over the years, Ed repeatedly promised her that after he passed, his estate would be sure to “take care of her.” Based on this promise, Paula selflessly cared for Ed until he sadly passed away more than ten years later. She did not pursue any other employment, despite having a number of great opportunities.Continue Reading Where Agreements Won’t Work – A Word to the Wise Regarding Strict Wage and Hour Liability and Related Claims