Fractional COO

Employers should be mindful of how workplace investigations are conducted and documented, as they can have legal consequences beyond termination decisions.
Employees who sue a former employer for wrongful termination following a workplace investigation sometimes bring a defamation claim as well, believing that the investigation’s allegations or conclusions damaged their professional reputation.

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is a powerful tool under California labor law that allows employees to file lawsuits against employers for labor code violations. Under PAGA, employees may file claims on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees for violations of the California Labor Code. Before filing a lawsuit, the employee must submit a written notice to both the employer and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), outlining the alleged violations. This notice is commonly referred to as a “PAGA notice.”

In a notable win for California employers, the California Court of Appeal recently upheld the enforceability of prospective meal period waivers in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., providing much-needed clarity for businesses navigating the state’s complex wage and hour laws. The April 21st decision involved a class action suit brought by two former employees who claimed they were denied proper meal breaks during shifts under six hours. In its defense, Vicar Operating, Inc., presented signed waivers in which employees voluntarily gave up their right to a meal break for shifts of six hours or less, with the understanding they could revoke the waiver at any time.

Employers have long relied on arbitration agreements to resolve workplace disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Arbitration offers privacy, faster resolution, and reduced legal costs compared to traditional litigation. But a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal highlights an important limit: employers can no longer compel arbitration in sexual harassment cases—even when a valid arbitration clause exists and the contract selects California law.

A new bill introduced in the California State Assembly—AB 1251—seeks to curb the growing trend of “ghost” job postings, where employers advertise positions that are not currently open or intended to be filled. If enacted, the bill would require employers to clearly disclose in job advertisements whether a listed position represents an actual, current vacancy. Failure to make this disclosure could constitute a violation of California’s unfair competition law, subject to enforcement by the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”), including administrative fines and cease-and-desist orders.

On March 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, holding that a plaintiff who rejects or allows a Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to lapse may still face cost-shifting consequences—even if the case settles before trial. This ruling resolves long-standing uncertainty about whether Section 998 penalties apply only when a case proceeds to judgment after trial, and it marks a reaffirmation of the statute’s purpose to promote early settlement.

The employment landscape is an ever changing one. No where is that more true than in the areas of computing and artificial intelligence, and their continuing impact on employers and employees alike. The proposed “No Robo Bosses” Act (Senate Bill 7) seeks to regulate the use of AI systems when hiring, promoting, disciplining, and terminating workers. A recent 41-page AI policy report commissioned by California Governor Gavin Newsom could soon lead to AI regulation that could impact AI-based decision-making, hiring processes, and workplace surveillance. The report’s recommendations have already been incorporated into a proposed bill, SB53 that could introduce new AI-related compliance and disclosure obligations. Here are some portions of the report that are anticipated to be impactful.

In California, the question of whether commission-based employees are entitled to overtime pay is one of the more complex areas of labor law. While the general rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor law mandates that non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, 8 in a workday, or more than 6 consecutive workdays in a workweek, commission-based employees are subject to specific requirements that could impact their eligibility for overtime pay. Under California law, most employees are entitled to overtime pay unless they fall within one of the state’s exemptions. For commission-based employees, determining whether they are entitled to overtime pay hinges on several factors.

In early 2020, thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers, supported by the advocacy group Rideshare Drivers United, filed claims against the companies, alleging misclassification as independent contractors and demanding over $1.3 billion in wages, expenses, and damages. The California attorney general, labor commissioner, and city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco joined in a coordinated lawsuit, seeking to enforce state labor laws and hold the companies accountable. Drivers who worked between 2016 and 2020 could be eligible for a potential settlement, as negotiations are now underway, with mediation sessions scheduled with Uber and Lyft in the coming weeks