On September 29 and 30, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed more than one hundred new pieces of legislation, several of which directly affect California employers.
On February 28, 2022, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued new guidance, further loosening the rules for wearing COVID-19–related masks in the state. Effective March 1, 2022, unvaccinated individuals are no longer required to mask in indoor public settings, although the CDPH included “a strong recommendation” that all individuals, “regardless of vaccine status, continue indoor masking.”
On February 23, 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) issued an order, effective February 25, 2022, that slightly loosened the rules for wearing COVID-19 masks in the county. One day after the LACDPH order, on February 24, 2022, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti issued the interim “Public Order Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority” that mirrored the new Los Angeles County order. While these revisions make the orders from both the county and city much more similar to the California state masking rules currently in effect, they remain stricter than the current state rules.
On February 7, 2022, the California legislature passed legislation reviving COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave (SPSL). The law creates new California Labor Code Section 248.6 and takes effect ten days after Governor Newsom signs the legislation, which we expect is imminent. It applies to all employers with 26 or more employees and will be retroactive to January 1, 2022.
On January 25, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom and California legislative leaders announced they have reached an agreement to require employers again to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave (SPSL), which expired on September 30, 2021.
As the United States gradually emerges from the pandemic, employers (and especially those in the tech sector whose workforces can easily work remotely) are looking for ways to help frazzled and burned-out employees. In addition, many employees are seeking opportunities to preserve the flexibility they gained during pandemic remote-work arrangements. Time off, company holidays, and workday flexibility are among the top remedies for these concerns. But outmoded state and federal labor laws may impede a new era of worker freedom.
On May 18, 2021, Santa Clara County, California, issued a health order that both relieves employers of some earlier COVID-19–related requirements and imposes new obligations on employers, particularly with respect to employees’ vaccination status. Santa Clara County also issued the “Mandatory Directive on Use of Face Coverings” and the “Mandatory Directive For Unvaccinated Personnel.”
On March 2, 2021, the City Council of San Diego, California, extended the “COVID-19 Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance” (O-21231/O-2021-20). The ordinance provides certain rights and preferences to hotel and janitorial workers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The ordinance originally took effect on September 8, 2020, and was set to expire on March 8, 2021. However, given the extraordinary loss of jobs in San Diego in the building services, leisure, and hospitality industries, the city council opted to extend the ordinance’s sunset provision until March 8, 2022, by way of an emergency ordinance (O-21296/O-2021-97).
Beginning March 29, 2021, California employers with more than 25 employees nationally will have to pay their California employees with up to 80 hours of COVID-19–related paid leave. On March 19, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 95, which creates new California Labor Code Sections 248.2 and Section 248.3.
Within days, California employers may have to provide employees with even more COVID-19–related paid leave. On March 18, 2021, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 95, which creates new Labor Code Section 248.2 and Labor Code Section 248.3. These new Labor Code sections provide covered employees and in-home supportive service providers with up to 80 new hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. As explained below, the bill is far more expansive than the California COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave statute that expired on December 31, 2020. The new legislation covers more employers and requires paid sick leave for many more reasons. If Governor Newsom signs SB 95, the law will take effect 10 days later and expire on September 30, 2021, unless extended.
On March 4, 2021, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) updated its “DFEH Employment Information on COVID-19” to include answers to some of the frequently asked questions (FAQs) about vaccinations.
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) recently updated its “Guide to COVID-19 Related Frequently Asked Questions [FAQs]” to include wage and hour issues and vaccinations.
On January 8, 2021, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) issued an updated version of its frequently asked questions (FAQs) guidance, “COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards Frequently Asked Questions,” about COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards. The FAQs address many issues about which employers had questions, including paid time off and exclusion pay.
On November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, the standards-setting agency of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), adopted an emergency standard regarding COVID-19 workplace prevention. The Standards Board submitted the new final rule to the Office of Administrative Law, which may approve the rule within as few as 10 days. This means employers may have to comply with the emergency standard as soon as Monday, November 30, 2020.
On September 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 1383, which repealed the current California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and eliminated the California New Parent Leave Act, replacing those statutes with a new CFRA, which can be found at California Government Code Section 12945.2, et seq.
On September 9, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1867, which requires large employers and some health care providers to provide up to 80 hours of paid leave for COVID-19–related reasons. The new law also codifies the governor’s previously issued executive order setting forth paid sick leave and handwashing requirements for food sector workers, creates a small business family leave mediation pilot program, and addresses enforcement issues in California’s pre-COVID-19 paid sick leave law.
On March 23, 2020, the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) issued “Guidance on [the] Conditional Suspension of California WARN Act Notice Requirements under Executive Order N-31-20.” The DIR provided guidance to further clarify Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-31-20 (March 17, 2020), which temporarily suspended Cal-WARN’s typical 60-day notice requirement for layoffs or business closures. The guidance may assist employers in understanding their Cal-WARN obligations when faced with making temporary or permanent staffing reductions (or relocations) as a result of COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts.
On June 1, 2016, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance impacting employers in the city of Los Angeles and mandating paid sick leave beyond that which is required under the recently passed California statute (Cal. Labor Code section 245, et. seq.). The ordinance, which took effect on July 1, 2016, has left many questions unanswered for employers as they set about revising their policies. With some additional insight that the City of Los Angeles’s Office of Wage Standards recently provided, we are now able to answer additional inquiries about the ordinance.
Los Angeles is once again in the spotlight as it implements changes in its laws that will impact many of its employers and their employees beginning July 1, 2016. On June 1, 2016, the City Council passed the Los Angeles Minimum Wage Ordinance (No. 184320), adopting both new minimum wage rules and paid sick leave benefits applicable to all employees who perform at least two hours of work in a particular week within the geographic boundaries of the City of Los Angeles.
Authored by: Serafin Tagarao Garcia v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, No. ECU05684 (January 16, 2015): In a recent unpublished ruling, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) against a former employee alleging disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair
Rommel v. Los Angeles Unified School District, No. B253405 (December 5, 2014): In a recent unpublished ruling, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of a school district and against a teacher who claimed that she was fired while on disability leave as a result of a computer error. The
A California Court of Appeal recently held that an employee whose new supervisors were unaware that she had filed a sexual harassment complaint in her previous position did not engage in unlawful retaliation. The court reasoned that a necessary element of a retaliation claim is a causal link between the protected activity and the alleged adverse action, and essential to that causal link is evidence that the employer knew that the employee had engaged in protected activity.
As the end of the year and the holidays draw near, many of us will express our gratitude to friends and family by exchanging gifts. As we are making our holiday gift lists, we may also find ourselves considering gifts for our colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates. Whether your list of…..
Motions for summary judgment are among the most important—and efficient—devices for defeating a discrimination suit brought by an employee against an employer. If successful, these motions serve to narrow issues to be litigated, avoid costly trials, and encourage opposing parties to consider settlement. As such, in defending a summary judgment…..
An office romance 25 years ago worked out well for President Barack Obama (who met his wife, Michelle, while they were both working at a Chicago law firm). President Bill Clinton’s history of workplace relationships was a different story. When workplace relationships don’t work out, it isn’t only the unhappy…..