Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 993 (2023); 74 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023)

The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members who bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to

California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. v. WCAB, 2023 WL 5198517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, if a worker is injured because of the employer’s serious and willful misconduct, the “compensation” the worker is entitled to receive increases by one half.  The statute defining “compensation” limits the term to benefits or payments provided by Division 4 of the Labor Code.  

We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., 91 Cal. App. 5th 894 (2023)

Deanna Hodges, who worked for Cedars-Sinai as an administrative employee with no patient responsibilities, refused to get vaccinated for the flu, contrary to Cedars’ policy which required all of its employees to get vaccinated in an effort to limit employee transmission of the flu.  The only exceptions were for a “valid medical

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:

Miller v. Roseville Lodge No. 1293, 83 Cal. App. 5th 825 (2022)

Roseville Lodge No. 1293, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., hired Charlie Gelatini to move an ATM on its premises.  Ricky Lee Miller, Jr., who worked for Gelatini and was the person who performed the work, was injured on the job when he fell from a scaffold.  Miller sued the Lodge and its

California law requires employers to furnish a “safe and healthful” workplace to employees. Now that the line between “workplace” and “home” has been blurred for so many workers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the law has been unclear as to whether that obligation extends to an employee whose “workplace” happens to be their residence. In Colonial Van & Storage, Inc. v. Superior Court

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

National Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA, 595 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022)

The United States Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enacted a vaccine mandate that would have required employers with at least 100 employees to require their employees (approximately 84 million workers) to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or to obtain a medical test each week

As we reported here, Cal/OSHA’s revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) took effect on January 14, 2022. The controversial emergency regulations, which have caused employers countless headaches, survived their first major challenge when the Court of Appeal, in Western Growers Association v. Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board affirmed the trial court’s order blocking a preliminary injunction.

A coalition of agricultural business organizations