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On September 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 1383, which repealed the current California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and eliminated the California New Parent Leave Act, replacing those statutes with a new CFRA, which can be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…..