On February 9, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 114, which provides COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave (SPSL) for covered employees who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 related reasons from January 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. SB 114 is nearly identical to Assembly Bill 84 (AB) which was passed by the California Legislature on February 7, 2022. SB 114 takes effect on February 19, 2022, (10 days after the bill is signed by Gov. Newsom) and adds Sections 248.6 and 248.7 to the California Labor Code.
Among other things, SB 114:
- Applies to employers with more than 25 employees.
- Establishes a new bank of COVID-19 related SPSL.
- Broadens the reasons employees can take COVID-19 SPSL
- Permits employers to request proof of a positive COVID-19 test as to the employee or the employee’s family member.
- Requires retroactive payment if an employee would have been eligible for SPSL since January 1, 2022.
- Will remain in effect until September 30, 2022.
Continue reading “Summary of New California COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave – What Employers Need to Know”
*Originally published by CalCPA in the January/February 2022 issue of California CPA.
To borrow from both the Grateful Dead and Miley Cyrus, “… what a long, strange trip it’s been …” and “there’s always gonna be another mountain … ain’t about what’s on the other side, it’s the climb.” Among the lasting 2021 impacts of politics, aberrant weather and wildfires—and COVID-19— is increased regulation of California employers. More than 330 bills introduced in the most recent California legislative session mention “employer,” compared to about 560 bills in 2020. While most bills did not pass the Legislature, many were signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, bringing more rules and risks for employers in our state dealing with COVID-19, workplace safety, wage and hour rules, worker classification, working conditions, leaves of absence, posters, Department of Fair Employment and Housing matters, settlements and nondisparagement agreements, and wage rates.
Continue reading “Employer Beware: New California Employment Laws for 2022”
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.
Continue reading “California Appellate Court Rules Stray Remarks Enough to Defeat Summary Judgment In Age Discrimination Case”
A divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the January 2020 preliminary injunction against enforcement of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), and upheld portions of the law that prohibited employers from making arbitration agreements a condition of employment. As a result of this decision, the Ninth Circuit has resurrected California Labor Code § 432.6, that bars businesses from requiring workers to arbitrate job-related claims. However, the court invalidated portions of AB 51 imposing civil and criminal penalties for mandating arbitration in violation of § 432.6.
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Vacates Injunction Against California Ban on Businesses Which Forced Workers to Submit to Arbitration Agreements”
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.
Continue reading “California Supreme Court: Paying Meal and Rest Period Penalty Based on Employee’s Base Hourly Rate Is Not Enough”
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.
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Decision Provides Potential Defense Strategy for Employers Facing PAGA Suits”