On September 30, 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 553 (“SB 553”) into law. Among other things, the new legislation added section 6401.9 to the California Labor Code (“Section 6401.9”), which requires that virtually all employers implement a workplace violence prevention plan (“WVPP”) by no later than July 1, 2024. Now, after months of waiting, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“CalOSHA”)
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 November 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
CSV Hospitality Mgmt. LLC v. Lucas, 84 Cal. App. 5th 117 (2022)
CSV Hospitality Management LLC obtained a restraining order under the Workplace Violence Safety Act against Jermorio Lucas who was living at the Aranda Residence, a residential hotel that provides supportive housing to formerly homeless individuals. In support of its petition against Lucas, CSV submitted affidavits from four of its employees establishing that
We invite you to review our newly-posted October 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Technology Credit Union v. Rafat, 82 Cal. App. 5th 314 (2022)
Technology Credit Union (“TCU”) obtained a Workplace Violence Restraining Order (“WVRO”) against one of its members (Matthew Mehdi Rafat) based on TCU’s evidence that Rafat allegedly made a credible threat of violence against M.L., one of TCU’s employees. The Court of Appeal reversed the WVRO after concluding that Rafat’s conduct was “indisputably rude,
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
Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 5th 74 (2018)
Felix Huerta sued Kava Holdings dba Hotel Bel-Air after the hotel terminated him and another restaurant server who was involved in an altercation during work. The trial court granted Kava’s motion for nonsuit as to Huerta’s claim for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and the jury returned a
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
ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff, 2016 WL 3626708 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
ViaView filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order against Thomas Retzlaff, a resident of Texas, who had filed a motion to quash the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion to quash and granted a permanent injunction against Retzlaff. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory