Publications

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series providing an overview of new federal and California employment laws. Unless otherwise noted, these laws will take effect on January 1, 2017. Paid Sick Leave for In-Home Supportive Services Employees – SB 3 Effective July 1,...

This article is Part 1 of a two-part series providing an overview of new federal and California employment laws. Several new laws taking effect in 2017 will affect how California employers do business. This two-part article summarizes key changes that employers can expect and suggests ways to comply. Unless otherwise noted, these laws will take effect on January 1, 2017.

Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“the Act”), passed on November 8, 2016. The Act represents a significant change to California law. Although the initiative expressly states it does not change employer’s rights and obligations to maintain a drug-free workplace, California employers should plan for reality: more employees may be under the influence of marijuana at work.

The legal rights of transgender individuals in the workplace are evolving. California law has conferred upon transgender employees the right to be free of workplace harassment and discrimination for several yeas. Until recently, however, there has been little in the...

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or “EEOC,” is the federal agency that enforces federal employment discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. These and other civil rights laws prohibit retaliation against workers for engaging in protected activity, such as filing a complaint with the agency or participating in an investigation.

It is no secret that hiring employees and conducting business in California involve more laws and rules than in other states. Multi-state employers often desire consistent personnel practices, or to mitigate some of the more restrictive elements of California employment law. To achieve these goals, employers may draft confidentiality, arbitration, or other agreements that include choice of law provisions and forum selection clauses.

Mandatory arbitration agreements in employment settings bring with them benefits and challenges. One attractive aspect – particularly in California – is that employers may require workers to arbitrate all disputes individually; i.e., not via a multi-plaintiff or class action. Both the United States and California Supreme Courts have upheld so-called “class action waivers” as lawful.

Misclassifying employees as “exempt,” maintaining “use-it or lose-it” vacation policies, and denying employees meal and rest breaks are examples of wage-hour law violations we have already thoroughly discussed. Below are a few unlawful practices of which employers may not be as aware.

The American custom of tipping wait staff can lead to wage-hour compliance issues under California and federal law. Because of tips, wait staff may be among the highest compensated employees in a restaurant, sometimes earning more than their managers. Meanwhile, cooks who prepare the food typically earn only a fixed wage, and dishwashers may work for minimum wage. Yet, each of these employees contributes to the customer’s dining experience.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) s a federal law that provides employers with some important benefits. However, employers wishing to take advantage of the new law should revisit policies and agreements, such as handbooks and non-disclosure agreements that restrict the use and disclosure of trade secrets.

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series providing an overview of recent United States Supreme Court decisions in employment law.

We continue below with brief summaries of the U.S. Supreme Court’s key employment law opinions. We also preview the cases that Court has accepted for review for the upcoming Term.