Some good news for California employers: recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that California employers can require employees and applicants to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, reversing its own prior decision which vacated U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California’s grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51).
In 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed many laws impacting California employers. Some of the new laws became effective immediately and others, including some that were signed into law just weeks ago, take effect January 1, 2023, or later. These new laws address several topics, including supplemental paid sick leave, pay transparency, leaves of absence and fast-food restaurant employment standards.
As a reminder, the minimum wage in California is increasing to $15.50 per hour on January 1, 2023, for all employers — regardless of the number of workers employed by an employer. Also, many cities and local governments in California have enacted minimum wage ordinances exceeding the state minimum wage.
A California Court of Appeal recently held that stray remarks by a non-decision maker regarding a position not sought after by the plaintiff may nonetheless be enough to defeat summary judgment in an age discrimination case in Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several laws in 2021 that are impacting or will impact how employers interact with and manage their employees. From confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions in settlement agreements to production quotas in warehouses, we examine the laws that have gone into effect and which laws employers need to begin preparing for over the next one to two years.
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s “regular rate of compensation” for the purposes of meal and rest break penalties includes all nondiscretionary payments, not just hourly wages. This decision will have significant impact on all employers in California because (1) going forward, employers cannot simply pay the employee’s base hourly rate for meal and rest break violations, and (2) this decision is retroactive.
In Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a $100 million-plus judgment against Walmart and held that employees lack standing to bring a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for labor code violations that they themselves did not suffer. Among other highlights, the federal appeals court found that California’s wage-statement law does not require employers to list a corresponding hourly rate when making a lump sum overtime adjustment payment. The decision provides helpful precedent for businesses litigating wage-and-hour class and representative actions, as well as employers with similar bonus schemes to Walmart.