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.
Mark Terman, Sujata Wiese and Shamar Toms-Anthony updated their article authored with Practical Law titled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (CA).” In their article, Mark, Sujata and Shamar discuss how companies can protect their information, including the use of confidentiality agreements and related practices, under California law.
*Originally published by CalCPA in the January/February 2019 issue of California CPA — the original article can be found here.
As the #MeToo movement gained momentum to right the wrongs of sexual harassment alleged against Hollywood, business and politicians, so too has the California Legislature responded by declaring, in essence, #TimesUp.
Of the nearly 600 bills introduced in 2018 that mention “employer,” compared to 304 bills in 2017) 455 mentioned “sexual harassment,” (compared to 347 the prior year). While most of those bills did not pass, and of the ones that did, Gov. Brown did not sign several into law, many of the new laws will have significant impact on our state.
In 2018, Governor Brown signed several laws impacting California employers. A summary of some of the key new laws follows. The effective date of each new law is indicated in the heading of the Assembly Bill (AB) and/or Senate Bill (SB).1 The list below is in numerical order by AB or SB.
Many employers have policies regarding the use of cell phones while driving, including the requirement to use the car’s hands-free, Bluetooth phone system, and abide by all applicable laws. But what happens when an employee still abides by the employer’s policy, is involved in a car accident, and causes injuries to a third party? Can the employer be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior?
Well, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. By way of background, respondeat superior means that an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees when these employees commit the wrongful acts within the scope of their employment. California courts have held that the determination of whether an employee has acted within the scope of employment is a question of fact, but it also can be a question of law in circumstances where the facts cannot be disputed and there can be no conflicting inferences possible.
Earlier this week, Wendy Moore, a former partner at Jones Day, filed a representative action against the law firm in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging a single cause of action pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for alleged violations of the California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Fair Pay Act of 2015, and related violations of the California Labor Code. The PAGA permits employees to bring civil suits to recover penalties on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees for Labor Code violations. Unlike class actions, PAGA claims can proceed regardless of whether the plaintiff can meet the requirements to certify a class.