What Employers Should Do After Receiving a Demand Letter or Agency Charge

What Employers Should Do After Receiving a Demand Letter or Agency Charge

Receiving a demand letter from an employee’s attorney or a charge from a government agency such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can be unsettling for any employer. However, the manner in which a business responds during the early stages of a claim can significantly impact the outcome. Employers should resist the urge to react emotionally or make immediate decisions before fully assessing the allegations and the facts at issue.

California Employers Face Growing Scrutiny as Wage-and-Hour Litigation Continues to Rise

California Employers Face Growing Scrutiny as Wage-and-Hour Litigation Continues to Rise

California employers continue to face significant wage-and-hour litigation risks as employee lawsuits remain one of the most active areas of workplace litigation across the state. Recent reports indicate that wage-and-hour claims have become the most frequently filed type of complex employment litigation, with disputes involving unpaid wages, meal and rest breaks, overtime compensation, and wage statement violations driving substantial settlements and judgments. Employers are increasingly finding that even minor compliance errors can result in costly class actions and representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

“Skinny” Labels at the Supreme Court: Why Hikma v. Amarin Matters

“Skinny” Labels at the Supreme Court: Why Hikma v. Amarin Matters

Pharmaceutical patent disputes increasingly turn on questions of label design and commercial speech, where the brand-name manufacturer, the generic applicant, and the federal regulator may all share an interest in the same product information. When a generic enters the market under a so-called “skinny label,” carving out a patented use while retaining the unpatented ones, the line between lawful competition and induced infringement can become hard to draw. A clear and predictable rule helps generic manufacturers plan launches, encourages early competition for unpatented uses, and ultimately influences the price patients pay for drugs at the pharmacy counter. The Supreme Court is now poised to address that line in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., its first patent decision since 2023, with a ruling expected before the summer recess.

Trademark Filing

Trademark Filing

A trademark filing and successful registration helps protect a business’s brand identity by granting exclusive rights to its name, logo, or slogan. A federal filing is the initiation of a complex legal process with the USPTO. It often times requires responses to Office Actions, filing Statements of Use (if necessary), and addressing third party challenges at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Legal protection through trademark registration can prevent competitors from using confusingly similar branding and helps establish trust with customers. For example, businesses that sell products or services may protect multiple brands within a trademark portfolio, making it easier to market different product or service lines or license brands belonging to the business.

DOL’s Proposed Joint Employer Rule: What PEOs and Employers Need to Know

DOL’s Proposed Joint Employer Rule: What PEOs and Employers Need to Know

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division recently released a proposed joint employer rule that could significantly impact the PEO industry. The proposal outlines a four-factor test used to determine when two businesses may be considered joint employers under the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA. No single factor is determinative — instead, the analysis looks at whether a business

Preparing for Workplace Investigations in Staffing Environments

Preparing for Workplace Investigations in Staffing Environments

Workplace investigations present unique challenges for staffing firms, where multiple parties, including the staffing agency, client company, and assigned employee, may all be involved. When misconduct allegations arise, employers must act promptly and thoughtfully to manage risk and maintain credibility. A delayed or poorly handled response can increase exposure, while a structured and timely investigation can help mitigate liability and demonstrate a commitment to workplace compliance.

California Pay Transparency Law: Employer Requirements Under SB 1162

California Pay Transparency Law: Employer Requirements Under SB 1162

California Pay Transparency Law: Employer Requirements Under SB 1162

California has implemented pay transparency requirements through California Senate Bill 1162, which amended Labor Code § 432.3. These provisions impose specific obligations on employers regarding pay scale disclosures and recordkeeping.

Pay Scale Disclosure Requirements

Under California Senate Bill 1162, employers with 15 or more employees must include the pay scale for a position in any job posting. This requirement also applies to job postings made through third parties on behalf of the employer.

In addition:

Employers must provide the pay scale for a position to a current employee upon reasonable request
Employers are required to provide pay scale information to third-party recruiters engaged to post jobs

Trade Secret Protection and Liability Risks Under California and Federal Law

Trade Secret Protection and Liability Risks Under California and Federal Law

Trade secrets are among the most valuable intangible assets held by small and midsize businesses, particularly those employing technical personnel, R&D staff, or key executives with access to proprietary information. In California, trade secret protection is governed primarily by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426–3426.11, and, at the federal level, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836 et seq. Both statutes define a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known and that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d); 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3).

AB 692: California Employers Should Reassess Repayment and “Stay-or-Pay” Provisions

AB 692: California Employers Should Reassess Repayment and “Stay-or-Pay” Provisions

California’s Assembly Bill 692 (AB 692), effective January 1, 2026, significantly limits the use of employee repayment and “stay-or-pay” provisions. Employers should review their agreements now to ensure compliance with the new requirements.

What the Law Changes
AB 692 generally prohibits employers from requiring employees to agree to provisions that impose financial consequences when employment ends. This includes terms that:
• Require repayment of a debt upon separation
• Allow or accelerate collection of an alleged debt
• Impose fees, penalties, or costs tied to leaving employment

Separation Agreements – Key Considerations for Employers and Employees

Separation Agreements – Key Considerations for Employers and Employees

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.