As discussed in our prior article, California recently enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 51, a law that attempts to ban certain mandatory employment arbitration agreements in the state.
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a state statute purporting to prohibit employers from requiring employees to enter into certain types of arbitration agreements. This new law is creating significant uncertainty and anxiety among employers. What is the practical impact of AB 51 in light of its possible preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and other potential challenges to its limits on arbitration?
California is set to become the only state to outlaw predispute mandatory arbitration of statutory employment claims. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill (AB) 51, which prohibits employers from requiring employees to arbitrate claims arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and related employment statutes.
Although California does not have a specific biometric privacy law like Illinois’s 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or its recently enacted 2019 Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AIVIA), stay tuned for the impact of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which goes into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA will directly affect how certain employers use biometric data in the workplace.
Legislatures across the country are racing to keep up with the ever-expanding uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace. While to date much of the focus has been on ethical uses of AI, disclosures requirements, and informed consent (e.g., the Illinois 2019 Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act), the California legislature recently took the bold move of promoting AI as a tool to reduce bias and discrimination in hiring and employment.
When employees leave a company—whether it is due to a voluntary or involuntary separation—their former employers may worry about the security of the company’s confidential information and trade secrets.
On January 6, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued one of its first decisions interpreting the ex parte seizure provisions found in the recently enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA).
On January 1, 2017, California Labor Code Section 925 went into effect. This new provision limits an employer’s ability to require employees to enter agreements that include out-of-state choice of law and/or forum selection clauses.
Until recently, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) allowed for federal trade secret actions by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) amended the EEA to provide private litigants the right to sue (and be sued) in federal court for trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA establishes a three-year statute of limitation and provides several remedies for successful plaintiffs, including injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees.
On May 11, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the long-awaited Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which is effective immediately. Three key features of the DTSA include: (1) the creation of a federal private right of action for trade secret misappropriation; (2) a provision permitting ex parte civil seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of trade secrets; and (3) a requirement that employers provide notice to employees of their immunities under the DTSA for making confidential disclosures to the government, in court filings, or in connection with whistleblower retaliation claims by employees against their employers.
Congress has finally passed the anticipated Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA). The bill, which is now on its way to the White House and is expected to be signed by President Obama, will be effective immediately once it is signed into law.
On January 19, 2016, a California Court of Appeal issued an unpublished decision in Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. The case was brought by Kyle Hunter, who filed an employment discrimination complaint, claiming that two local CBS television stations, KCAL and KCBS, had “repeatedly shunned [him] for numerous on-air broadcasting positions . . . due to . . . his gender and his age.” He asserted that CBS’s failure to hire him was part of “[a] plan to turn prime time weather broadcasting over to younger attractive females” in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
A California Court of Appeal recently held that claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition are not “displaced” or preempted by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).