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.
Continue Reading Which California Employment-Related Bills Were Signed Into Law And Which Ones Did Not Make The Cut?
Retaliation and Wrongful Termination
To Be or Not to Be [a New Law]? Countdown on Governor Brown’s Review of California Employment-Related Bills
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.
Continue Reading To Be or Not to Be [a New Law]? Countdown on Governor Brown’s Review of California Employment-Related Bills
California Law Now Provides an Express Statutory Privilege Against Defamation Claims by Those Accused of Sexual Harassment
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.)
Continue Reading California Law Now Provides an Express Statutory Privilege Against Defamation Claims by Those Accused of Sexual Harassment
NLRB Provides Guidance Regarding Permissible Policies – Are Your Policies Compliant?
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.
Continue Reading NLRB Provides Guidance Regarding Permissible Policies – Are Your Policies Compliant?
New California Regulations on National Origin Going Into Effect
As any reader of our blog knows, California employers are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of national origin (among other classifications). The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (“FEHC”) recently issued new regulations, which go into effect on July 1, 2018, expanding the definition of “national origin” to include an individual’s or ancestors’ actual or perceived (1) physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics associated with a national origin group; (2) marriage to persons of a national origin group; (3) tribal affiliation; (4) membership in an organization identified with or seeking to promote the interests of a national origin group; (5) attendance in schools or religious institutions typically used by persons of a national origin group; and (6) name associated with a national origin group. The regulations also provide that “national origin groups” include “ethnic groups, geographic places of origin, and countries that are not presently in existence.”
Continue Reading New California Regulations on National Origin Going Into Effect