As covered previously here, the California Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) once again has identified a handful of “job killer” bills making their way through the legislative process. This year’s crop of proposed legislation would, among other things, inflate employer data reporting requirements and further expand the scope of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Several of these recently introduced bills already have passed
Spring Showers Bring Job Killer Bills to California
Pablo Neruda once said “you can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming.” Likewise, California businesses’ protests against oppressive employment legislation don’t seem to stem the tide of the Legislature’s latest batch of anti-employer bills.
The California Chamber of Commerce has just identified a host of recently introduced “Job Killer” Bills pending before the California Legislature. This year’s list includes
September 2021 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2021 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Ninth Circuit Rejects “Paramour Preference” Liability Arising From Supervisor’s Affair With Another Employee
- $3.5 Million Emotional Distress Award Was “Shockingly Disproportionate” To Evidence Of Harm
- Employee Nonsolicitation Clause Does Not Violate Antitrust Law And
Hirer Of Independent Contractor Is Not Liable For Injuries To Workers
Gonzalez v. Mathis, 2021 WL 3671594 (Cal. S. Ct. 2021)
John R. Mathis (aka Johnny Mathis) lives in a one-story house with a flat, sand-and-gravel roof. The roof contains a large skylight covering an indoor pool. Luis Gonzalez is a professional window washer who regularly cleaned Mathis’s skylight. At the direction of Mathis’s housekeeper, Gonzalez went up on the roof to tell his employees
Federal Guidance on Mandating Employee COVID-19 Vaccinations
To date, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has not issued relevant guidance regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccination programs. Despite the current lack of California-specific information, on December 16, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its COVID-19-related guidance, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” to address questions about
Time Spent By Employees In Exit Searches Is Compensable
Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 2020 WL 5225699 (9th Cir. 2020)
Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning
California Will Presume COVID-19 Infections Arose From On-Site Work Performed After March 19
On May 6, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-62-20, which creates a time-limited rebuttable presumption that workers who are still reporting to their employer’s workplace and who test positive for COVID-19 are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Specifically, the Order provides that any COVID-19-related illness of an employee shall be “presumed to arise out of and in the course of the employment” if
Release Executed In Workers’ Compensation Case Did Not Bar Subsequent Civil Action
Camacho v. Target Corp., 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Adrian Camacho, a former Target cashier, sued for alleged sexual orientation discrimination, harassment causing a hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive termination in violation of public policy and related claims. Prior to resigning his employment with Target, Camacho settled a workers’ compensation (“WC”) claim he had filed against Target based upon his
Employee’s Qui Tam Action Is Not Barred By The Litigation Privilege
People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal. App. 5th 801 (2017)
Mahmoud Alzayat filed this qui tam action against his employer (Sunline Transit Agency) and his supervisor (Gerald Hebb), alleging a violation of the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFPA”) based upon allegedly false statements that Hebb made in an incident report submitted in response to Alzayat’s workers’ compensation claim and in a
Employer May Be Liable For Sexual Harassment By Nonemployee Trespasser
M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Mgmt. LLC, 2017 WL 4831603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
M.F., a housekeeping employee who worked for a hotel, alleged she had been raped while working on the employer’s premises by a drunk, nonemployee trespasser whom the employer knew or should have known was on the premises and who had “aggressively propositioned at least one other housekeeping employee for sexual