In his first year in office, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed several laws impacting California employers. A summary of some of the key new laws follows. The effective date of the particular new law is indicated in the heading of the Assembly Bill (AB) or Senate Bill (SB).1 The list below is in numerical order by AB or SB.
In most jurisdictions, it is standard practice to include a “no-rehire” clause when negotiating a settlement agreement in an employment dispute. “No-rehire” clauses bar the departing employee from seeking future employment with the employer or one of the employer’s related entities. If the former employee applies for a job with the employer or a related entity, the “no-rehire” clause allows the employer to reject the former employee’s application or require the former employee to withdraw the application for employment. In some instances, if the former employee is hired inadvertently, the “no-rehire” clause provides the employer a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis to rescind the offer. Although the use of “no-rehire” clauses is a common practice, California recently prohibited the practice and joined Vermont, which banned “no-rehire” provisions in 2018.
On September 24, 2019 the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a revised Final Overtime Rule increasing the minimum salary threshold for overtime exemption to $35,568. The Final Overtime Rule takes effect on January 1, 2020.
The DOL’s Final Overtime Rule increases the weekly salary threshold for minimum wage and overtime exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from $455 to $684 (an increase in the annual minimum salary from $23,600 to $35,568). The Final Overtime Rule also increases the minimum annual exemption salary threshold for highly compensated employees (HCEs) from $100,000 to $107,432.
There are many notable east coast-west coast rivalries. In sports (Celtics versus Lakers basketball), in leisure (Atlantic versus Pacific beaches), or in food (Shake Shack versus In-N-Out Burger), to name a few. With respect to restrictive covenants, the conflict between Delaware, which is generally considered a “pro-enforcement” jurisdiction, and California, which is generally considered an “anti-enforcement” jurisdiction, definitely stands out in the crowd. This installment of the Restricting Covenant Series looks at the competing views of the Golden State and The First State’s on the enforceability of restrictive covenants, and the critical importance of conducting a “choice of law” analysis to settle this feud.
If so, you should be on alert about California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), a bill based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court.* If it becomes law, AB5 will have wide-ranging repercussions for companies that rely on independent contractors in California.
As we have previously discussed, there is an ongoing trend of states prohibiting the use of non-compete agreements in certain situations, including with lower-wage workers. Maine and New Hampshire are the most recent examples.