In October 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 525 (“SB 525”), which establishes minimum wage schedules for “covered health care employees” depending on the type of facilities in which they work, and raises the minimum wage for many healthcare facilities to $21 per hour. SB 525 would have raised the minimum wage on June 1, 2024 for many of these facilities. However, on Monday, May 20, 2024, State Senator Mara Elana Durazo, the bill’s author, submitted paperwork for legislation that would delay the increase. Senate Bill No. 828 (“SB 828”) moves the start date of the health care minimum wage law by one month to July 1, 2024.Continue Reading California’s Minimum Wage Law for Healthcare Workers May Be Delayed
California
CFRA Family Leave and California Paid Sick Leave Expanded to Employees’ “Designated Persons”
Existing California law provides employees with the right to take paid and unpaid leaves to care for certain family members when they need the employee’s assistance to obtain medical treatment, diagnosis, or preventative care. On September 29, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 1041, which adds a “designated person” to the list of individuals for whom an employee may take California Family Rights Act or use paid sick leave.
Continue Reading CFRA Family Leave and California Paid Sick Leave Expanded to Employees’ “Designated Persons”
Weintraub Employment Group Launches “California Employment News” Video Series
Weintraub Tobin is pleased to announce the launch of California Employment News, a series of short, informational videos designed to keep California employers up-to-date on legal developments in employment law.
Continue Reading Weintraub Employment Group Launches “California Employment News” Video Series
California Court of Appeal Holds That Trial Courts Have Authority to Strike PAGA Claims For Being Unmanageable
What is PAGA?
California’s labor law enforcement agencies, including the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) also known as the “Labor Board” has the authority to investigate whether employers violate the California Labor Code, and assess and collect civil penalties for any such violations. However, due to purported budget cuts and cited lack of state resources to prosecute such actions, in 2004, the Legislature enacted the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq., to authorize an employee to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against his or her employer for Labor Code violations committed against the employee and fellow employees, with 75% of the proceeds of that litigation going to the state, and 25% to the employees. A PAGA plaintiff therefore steps into the shoes of an attorney general to prosecute alleged Labor Code violations for civil penalties, on behalf of the state. PAGA penalties can be astronomical. Pursuant to PAGA, default civil penalties are $100 “for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation,” and $200 per aggrieved employer, per pay period, per “each subsequent violation.”
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Holds That Trial Courts Have Authority to Strike PAGA Claims For Being Unmanageable
Employers Beware – Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions Face Further Restrictions
In 2018, in response to the #MeToo movement, California enacted Senate Bill 820 which added section 1001 to the California Code of Civil Procedure and prohibited employers from including provisions into settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of factual information relating to claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, harassment in a professional relationship, discrimination based on sex, or retaliation that had been made in connection with a civil lawsuit or administrative action. Senate Bill 820 took effect on January 1, 2019. Notably, it applied only to claims based on sex and not other forms of harassment or discrimination nor did it apply to settlement or severance agreements signed before an employee filed a lawsuit.
Continue Reading Employers Beware – Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions Face Further Restrictions