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?
Pay Correctly Now or Pay More Later: All You Need to Know About Wage and Hour Laws
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.
Continue Reading Pay Correctly Now or Pay More Later: All You Need to Know About Wage and Hour Laws
Good News Employers – There are Now Some Answers to Your Questions About the Recent Law Prohibiting Use of Prior Salary History
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.
Continue Reading Good News Employers – There are Now Some Answers to Your Questions About the Recent Law Prohibiting Use of Prior Salary History
San Francisco’s New Rules for Enforcing its Paid Sick Leave Ordinance
On May 7, 2018, the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) published 14 new rules for interpreting the San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (“PSLO”). The PSLO was amended on January 1, 2017. The new rules take effect on June 7, 2018.
We’ve summarized the 5 rules that our clients most frequently ask about:
Continue Reading San Francisco’s New Rules for Enforcing its Paid Sick Leave Ordinance
GOOD NEWS EMPLOYERS – The U.S. Supreme Court Says You Can Require Class Action Waivers In Your Arbitration Agreements
On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. In a 5-4 decision written by the newest jurist, Justice Gorsuch, the Court declares that employers can require employees to arbitrate their employment disputes individually and waive their rights to resolve those disputes through class or collective actions.
Background.
The case was a consolidation of three cases (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.). In each case, the employees brought a class action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and related state law against their employer on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees for wage and hour violations. However, in each of the cases, the employees had entered into an agreement with their employer providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties. Although the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written, the employees argued that the FAA’s “savings clause” removes this obligation if an arbitration agreement violates some other federal law and that, by requiring individualized proceedings, the agreements they signed violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Continue Reading GOOD NEWS EMPLOYERS – The U.S. Supreme Court Says You Can Require Class Action Waivers In Your Arbitration Agreements