Resources

Separation agreements are a common tool used by businesses to formalize the terms of an employee’s departure. These agreements typically include provisions addressing severance pay, benefits continuation, confidentiality, and a release of claims.

At the core of most separation agreements is the release of claims, where the employee agrees to waive certain legal rights in exchange for payment. This is usually in the form of severance pay or other benefits not otherwise owed. For the release to be enforceable, it must be knowing and voluntary, and it must comply with applicable federal and state laws. For example, agreements involving employees aged 40 and over must satisfy the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), which has specific timing, disclosure, and revocation requirements.

Under California employment law, particularly the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), separate business entities may, in certain circumstances, be treated as a single employer for liability purposes. This doctrine prevents businesses from avoiding compliance or liability by fragmenting operations across multiple related entities. When applied, employees of one entity may pursue FEHA claims (such as discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or failure to accommodate) against affiliated entities deemed part of the same integrated enterprise.

Social media is now a routine part of daily life, but it presents challenges for employers trying to balance business interests with employee rights. While companies have legitimate reasons to regulate certain online conduct, overly broad or inconsistent policies can create legal exposure rather than prevent it.

Businesses operating in California often ask when exposure to a chemical trigger a warning obligation under Proposition 65. The answer is that a “clear and reasonable” warning is required when a business “knowingly and intentionally” exposes individuals to a listed chemical above regulatory thresholds. These thresholds are commonly referred to as “safe harbor levels.” Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide a warning if exposures exceed certain levels and evaluate exposure based on foreseeable use of a product.

Employers gain decisive benefits by structuring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA provides a uniform, pro-enforcement framework that minimizes forum shopping, curtails litigation costs, and speeds dispute resolution with predictable, nationwide standards. FAA-governed agreements can reduce exposure to runaway jury awards, streamline discovery, and promote confidentiality—advantages that translate into material savings and operational certainty. When disputes arise across multiple states, FAA preemption helps neutralize inconsistent state-law obstacles and preserves the parties’ bargained-for efficiencies.

The Risk of Inaccurate or Inflated Evaluations
Performance reviews are an important management tool, but when handled poorly they can create significant legal risk for employers. Inconsistent or overly positive evaluations that contradict later disciplinary actions are frequently used by employees to challenge termination decisions or allege discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination. For this reason, employers should treat performance reviews not only as a management tool, but also as an opportunity to reduce legal risk.

Business owners seeking brand protection ask whether forming a limited liability company (“LLC”) or a corporation is a prerequisite to securing a federal trademark. The answer is “no,” a legal entity such as an LLC or a corporation is not required to file a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). At the federal level, the USPTO simply requires an “applicant,” and that applicant can be an individual, an LLC, a corporation, or another business entity.

Remote and hybrid work arrangements are now a permanent feature of many workplaces. While they offer flexibility and operational benefits, they also present unique challenges when addressing employee misconduct and performance concerns. Employers must balance effective oversight with legal compliance, employee privacy, and consistent documentation practices.

Strong management is not only essential for productivity and morale, but also a critical component of legal risk management. Many employment-related claims do not arise from intentional misconduct, but from inconsistent, poorly trained, or inattentive management practices. When managers fail to follow established policies or apply them unevenly, businesses can face significant legal exposure.

California remains one of the most restrictive states on non compete agreements, and the state continues to uphold a long standing public policy that promotes employee mobility and competition. Under Business and Professions Code Section 16600 and related amendments, post employment non compete clauses are generally void and unenforceable in California, even if the contract was signed outside the state or before the employee worked in California. California views that limiting a worker’s ability to pursue a livelihood suppresses wages and stifles innovation.