California is considering a new law (Assembly Bill 331), also known as the Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act. Modeled after the Biden Administration’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (whitehouse.gov), AB 331 would control the use of machine-based systems in making “consequential” employment decisions such as compensation, promotions, hiring, termination, and automated task allocations.
If passed and signed into law, AB
We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Price v. Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 2022 WL 16845113 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
La Vonya Price worked as a part-time substitute special education aide at the Victor Valley Unified School District before applying for a full-time position. Although she received an offer for a full-time position, it was contingent upon her passing a physical exam, which she failed. Price sued for disability
A new year brings new employment laws for California employers. California employers will want to begin revising employee policies and handbooks now, so that they are prepared to comply with these new laws when the majority of them go into effect on January 1, 2023. Here are five new employment laws that every California employer should know:
AB 1041 (Expanded Definition of “Family Member” for
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Hebert v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2022)
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requires an employer to provide a job applicant with a standalone disclosure stating that the employer may obtain the applicant’s consumer report when making a hiring decision. In this putative class action, Vicki Hebert alleged that Barnes & Noble willfully violated the FCRA by providing
Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, 2022 WL 2112792 (9th Cir. 2022)
Alfred Johnson brought this class action against WinCo, seeking compensation as an “employee” for the time and expense of taking a drug test as a successful applicant for employment. Plaintiffs argued that because the drug tests were administered under the control of the employer, they qualified as “employees” under California law. The district
A federal appeals court recently affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of WinCo Foods in a class action alleging that WinCo should have reimbursed successful job applicants for the time and travel expenses they incurred in obtaining a drug test as a pre-condition of employment. In Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, the court agreed with a lower court that WinCo was not obligated
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that date of birth and/or a driver’s license number cannot be used to identify individuals in an electronic search of the criminal index of court records. All of Us or None v. Hamrick. This ruling complicates and further restricts how and even whether (from a practical standpoint) employers can conduct lawful background checks on job applicants and
Known as “Ban-the-Box” legislation in reference to the box applicants are asked to check if they have any prior criminal convictions, the new law prohibits employers from inquiring about or considering a job applicant’s conviction history prior to an offer of employment. Specifically, the new law amends California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) by making it unlawful for employers in California with five or