Fall has arrived, and Sacramento once again has supplied California employers with something scarier than Halloween ghouls: another round of workplace legislation. This year’s harvest includes restrictions on artificial intelligence, expanded leave rights, and steeper penalties. There is even a temporary reprieve from last year’s “stay-or-pay” restrictions. (Apparently, some regulations need a little regulating themselves.)
Here is what employers should know. Unless otherwise noted, the
A Cruise employee was injured while riding in one of the company’s autonomous vehicles, but he was off duty and using the ride-hailing service as a customer. He sued Cruise and related entities, which sought arbitration under both his employment agreement and the Terms of Service associated with his customer account. The trial
A former employee asserted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation under the California Family Rights Act, and common law wrongful termination claims. The trial court granted the employer’s motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause that applied to disputes “regarding any aspect” of the
A former employee brought a putative wage-and-hour class action, and GEO sought to enforce an arbitration agreement signed during onboarding. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration agreement had to be read together with a confidentiality agreement that was signed at the same time. Taken as a package, the documents
Medical Solutions first moved to compel a travel nurse’s wage-and-hour claims under an arbitration provision in its handbook. After the trial court denied the motion because that provision had been superseded, the company filed a second motion relying on a different arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the second filing
Employees sued for wrongful termination, discrimination, and sexual harassment. The employer answered, pursued extensive discovery over the course of three months, filed cross-claims, and otherwise advanced the court proceedings before moving to compel arbitration shortly after the employees filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Applying the California Supreme Court decision in Quach v. California
Jessica Combs alleged that from 2017 through 2021, she repeatedly complained to Netflix about a sexually charged workplace and specific incidents of harassment, that Netflix failed to correct the situation, and that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaints in December 2021. Combs filed an administrative complaint in August 2023 and later
A male employee alleged that a coworker repeatedly made derogatory comments about his being gay, engaged in threatening and unwelcome physical conduct, and continued such activity despite Decloedt’s complaints to supervisors and HR. The employer’s motion to compel arbitration was denied. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that harassment based on sexual
After her termination, former CFO Dr. Ding Ding filed an arbitration demand, alleging discrimination and harassment based on national origin and her status as a domestic-violence victim. Discovery revealed evidence suggesting that the alleged mistreatment was motivated by her sex (based on a document identifying a male as the “ideal phenotype” for the