The U.S. Supreme Court has made the news in recent days. In a recent order, the Supreme Court denied review of California’s (controversial) AB 5—a law that, by default, classifies workers as “employees” instead of independent contractors.
California employment law is often in tension with federal law. And that occasionally leads to consequences. Recently, in a highly anticipated case named Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s ban on mandatory arbitration of so-called individual PAGA claims is invalid (i.e., “preempted”) under federal law.
Employers may not be out of the trenches when it comes to possible legal liability relating to COVID-19. The Supreme Court of California has recently agreed to consider two novel issues relating to employer liability and COVID-19.
Inflation has been a major topic in the news, but it impacts far more than just the prices consumers pay for everyday goods. All employers in California should be aware that the current high rate of inflation has triggered a substantial increase in the statewide minimum wage; even in many localities where the minimum wage is set even higher.
Arbitration is a hot topic. In a key decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the United States Supreme Court recently made it easier for a party to argue that an opponent has waived its right to arbitrate a matter. Until the decision in Morgan, parties would routinely initiate legal action in courts against an adversary despite having a written agreement to arbitrate disputes arising from that agreement (the reason for this varied, but included the desire to burden an opponent with the need to file a motion to compel arbitration).
Calling all small employers in California! By June 30, 2022, employers with 5 to 50 California-based employees must sponsor a qualified private retirement employee-retirement plan or participate in the CalSavers Retirement Savings Program.
Last week, the California Supreme Court clarified a previously ambiguous aspect of Labor Code Section 226.7, which requires an employer to pay an employee one additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation when the employer fails to provide a legally compliant meal period or rest break. While it was previously assumed this premium compensation is considered a “penalty,” the Supreme Court decided in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. that it is a wage.
You may have heard about the “Great Resignation” recently – the growing trend where employees are resigning in great numbers. Competition between employers is fierce to attract and hire top talent. To expedite this process, employers may opt to use software programs that streamline this process by employing artificial intelligence (“AI”) and algorithms to make staffing decisions.
Even the wealthiest man on earth must contend with non-disclosure agreements. Elon Musk recently made headlines when he offered to purchase Twitter and take the company private for $44 billion. Over the weekend, Musk disclosed that Twitter accused him of violating its NDA when he publicly revealed Twitter’s policies regarding the regulation of bots.
Diversity programs are commonly implemented in many aspects of our lives these days. So, it is surprising when a court—no less one based in California—strikes down such a program as unconstitutional. But that is exactly what one court recently did when it struck down A.B. 979, a law requiring publicly traded companies based in California to include members from underrepresented communities on their board.
