Mark E. Terman, Author at Laborsphere

New California Laws for 2024 and Beyond: What Employers Should Know

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several laws impacting California employers in 2023. Some of the new laws became effective immediately and others, including some that were signed into law just weeks ago, take effect January 1, 2024, or later. These new laws address several topics, including expanding paid sick leave, leave of absence for reproductive loss, minimum wage increases for fast-food restaurant employees and health care workers, restraint on trade, and workplace violence prevention standards.

Continue reading “New California Laws for 2024 and Beyond: What Employers Should Know”

California Pay Data Reports Due May 10, 2023

On May 10, 2023, employers must submit their pay data reports to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). As previously reported here, Senate Bill 1162 amended Labor Code section 432.3 and Government Code section 12999 as part of California’s ongoing efforts to promote workplace pay transparency as a means to combat pay discrimination. Employers are required to comply annually with the obligation to not only report data for their W-2 employees, but also the new obligation to compile and report data for workers supplied by their labor contractors that are either working at, or assigned to, California locations.

Which employers must report?

Private employers with 100 or more employees (with at least one employee based in California) must file a “Payroll Employee Report.” New in 2023, all private employers with 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors in the prior calendar year (with at least one worker based in California) must file a “Labor Contactor Employee Report.”

Continue reading “California Pay Data Reports Due May 10, 2023”

New Employment Laws for 2023: What California Employers Need to Know

2023 saw more people engaged with in-person, positive community as COVID-19 infections and serious cases declined. Yet, last year in our state was also marked with difficult impacts of politics, social media, the economy, divergent weather, wildfires and water scarcity. And, almost as sure as the sun rises each day, regulation of California employers increased too. More than 580 bills introduced in the last California legislative session mention “employer,” compared to about 330 bills in 2021.

While most bills did not pass the legislature, many were signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, bringing more rules and risks for employers dealing with workplace safety, privacy, leaves of absence, anti-discrimination, wages, benefits and working conditions.

Continue reading “New Employment Laws for 2023: What California Employers Need to Know”

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (California) – 2022

Los Angeles partner Mark Terman and associate Maria Cho have provided an annual update to a Practical Law article, entitled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (California).” In their article, Mark and Maria discuss how companies can protect their information, including the use of confidentiality agreements and related practices, under California law. They also outline practical tips on developing internal systems and contract provisions designed to protect a company’s sensitive information, including its business assets and relationships, data security and trade secrets.

Practical Law™, a division of West Publishing Corporation, provides legal know-how for business lawyers. It also acts as secretariat for the GC100 group of general counsel and company secretaries.

Continue reading “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (California) – 2022”

DC Finally Prunes its Ban on Non-Competes

When initially enacted in January 2021, the District of Columbia’s Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act was one of the broadest non-compete prohibitions in the country. Its effective date, however, was delayed on several occasions amid widespread criticism of its comprehensive scope. For more information about the original act and its subsequent delay, please see our previous posts on the matter here and here. The DC Council ultimately passed a scaled back version some 18 months later.

Effective October 1, 2022, the Non-Compete Clarification Amendment Act of 2022 (the “Amended Act”) limits the scope of the initial ban by narrowing of (a) the definition of a “non-compete provision” and (b) applicability to certain highly compensated employees (“HCEs”).

Continue reading “DC Finally Prunes its Ban on Non-Competes”

9th Circuit Says Forum Selection and Choice of Law in Employment Agreement Violate California Law

On March 14, 2022, the 9th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s decision in DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Corp., that invalidated the New Jersey forum selection clause in the employment contract of Stryker’s former sales associate as a matter of California law and denied Stryker’s motion to transfer the litigation to New Jersey. Though forum selection clauses are generally enforceable under federal law, the 9th Circuit reasoned that deference must be given to state law in determining the validity of a forum selection clause before considering whether the clause is enforceable under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

The case involved a former Stryker medical device sales associate, Jonathan Waber, who was employed by Stryker in California and who signed an employment contract with Stryker without legal representation. The agreement included non-competition and non-solicitation provisions, and also included forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses requiring adjudication of contract disputes in New Jersey. After less than one year of employment with Stryker, Waber left Stryker to work for one of its competitors, DePuy. After receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Stryker, DePuy and Waber preemptively filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Stryker and its subsidiary, Howmedica.

Continue reading “9th Circuit Says Forum Selection and Choice of Law in Employment Agreement Violate California Law”