On November 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) voted 4-1 to proceed with formal rulemaking regarding automated decision-making technology (“ADMT”), which the draft regulations define as “any technology that processes personal information and uses computation to execute a decision, replace human decisionmaking, or substantially facilitate human decisionmaking.” If enacted, the regulations would impose sweeping requirements on employers who rely on assistance from artificial
As we previously reported, a Los Angeles jury awarded one of the largest verdicts in history in a sexual assault case in June 2024, doling out a massive $900 million verdict in favor of a plaintiff in a suit against billionaire Alkiviades David. This week, however, a Los Angeles County Court found the damages award “shocked the conscience” and ordered the case to go
On June 27, 2024, by near-unanimous vote, the California Legislature passed two bills enacting much-needed reform to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). We previously reported on the legislative compromise last week, when the deal was first announced.
The most profound changes are contained in AB 2288, which amended Labor Code § 2699—the beating heart of PAGA. AB 2288 makes several significant changes to the
In 2018, California’s statewide Fair Chance Act (“FCA”) went into effect, imposing limitations on employers’ consideration of applicants’ criminal records and requiring a fair chance process before a candidate’s offer was revoked. A year earlier, the City of Los Angeles had enacted its own Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring, which imposed similar obligations on employers within the boundaries of the City. Now, Los Angeles County
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Case No. S275431, providing additional guidance on compensable “hours worked” under California law. In a class action asserting wage claims on behalf of contractors at a construction site, the Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Ninth Circuit as follows:
First, the Court held
As we previously reported, California recently enacted AB 1076, which reinforces the state’s broad statutory ban on noncompete agreements. The law took effect on January 1, 2024, and expressly codifies Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), a California Supreme Court opinion barring any noncompete, no matter how narrowly tailored it may be. The new law also affirms
The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion that signals some movement in the direction away from enforcing employment-related arbitration agreements.
In Miller v. Amazon.com, Ca
se No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration in a case brought by Amazon Flex delivery drivers who made last-leg deliveries of goods shipped from other states or countries
On September 1, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 699, which amends California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 to prohibit an employer from entering into or attempting to enforce a non-compete agreement regardless of whether the contract was signed outside of California. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2024.
Previously, California law banned non-compete agreements, subject to limited exceptions.
California Labor Code section 2802 (“Section 2802”) requires employers to reimburse employees for “all necessary expenditures or losses” they incur as a “direct consequence of the discharge of … [their] duties, or … [their] obedience to the directions of the employer.” So, in March 2020, when Governor Newsom issued a broad stay-at-home order requiring all non-essential workers to work remotely (if possible), questions arose about