The California Supreme Court handed employers a consolation prize this week, holding that an employer does not incur monetary penalties if there is a reasonable, good faith dispute over whether the employer violated the wage statement statute. Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2024 WL 1979980 (Cal. May 6, 2024).
One of the employer’s workers in this case filed a putative class action, alleging
A recent unpublished California Court of Appeal decision, Hegemier v. A Better Life Recovery LLC, Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., No. G061892, demonstrates the potential consequence of drafting an arbitration agreement without foreseeing every way a future plaintiff might attempt to pick it apart.
Almost two years ago, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022),the United States Supreme
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employers’ consideration of applicants’ criminal records and requiring a fair chance process before a candidate’s offer was revoked.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
Labor Co-Chair Tony Oncidi joins Bloomberg Law podcast host June Grasso to discuss how the First Amendment can shield casting decisions from discrimination challenges. In this episode, Grasso and Oncidi cover a Broadway musical’s casting decision that replaced one actor with another of a different race and the implications the decision will have on discrimination claims throughout the entertainment industry.
We invite you to listen
With the sweeping presence of technology today, the boundary between work life and home life has become increasingly blurred. A new bill recently introduced to the California legislature seeks to change that by protecting employees’ “right to disconnect.”
Assembly Bill 2751, introduced by Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), proposes to add a Section 1198.2 to the Labor Code that would effectively prevent employers from contacting employees
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
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act (the “Act”), a bill that, if enacted, would lower the threshold for a “standard” workweek by 20 percent, from 40 to 32 hours. Should the Act become law, it would have a significant impact on employers not just in California but across the nation. (Of course, there’s always a California connection—companion legislation, H.R. 1332
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
As readers may know, California requires private employers of 100 or more employees and/or 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors to annually report pay, demographic, and other workforce data to the Civil Rights Department (“CRD”).
The CRD has published “important announcements” regarding changes to this year’s reporting requirements, including the following:
A federal court in New York has held that a Broadway musical’s casting decisions—specifically replacing one actor with another actor of a different race—are shielded by the First Amendment from employment discrimination claims, in a decision that could have implications across the entertainment industry.
In Moore v. Hadestown Broadway LLC, the plaintiff, a Black woman, brought race discrimination and retaliation claims under federal and