On October 4, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 616, amending California’s statewide paid sick and safe leave law. Effective January 1, 2024, this amendment increases paid leave hours for employees and accrual amounts and provides some protections for employees covered by certain collective bargaining agreements. Continue Reading California Increases Requirements for Paid Sick Leave
Sheryl (“Sherry”) Skibbe is a Shareholder at Vedder Price and a member of the Labor & Employment group in the firm’s Los Angeles office.
Ms. Skibbe is an experienced litigator with strong record of success representing global clients in the defense of complex class, collective, and representative actions and high-risk lawsuits.
With the assistance of California governor Gavin Newsom, fast food companies that supported a referendum to reverse the 2022 Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (“AB 257”) struck a deal with several labor unions, including the Service Employees International Union, to revise some of AB 257’s most controversial provisions. In exchange for an agreement on this new bill (“AB 1228”), fast food companies agreed to withdraw the referendum that was set for a vote in 2024.Continue Reading California Fast Food Workers Look Forward to Pay Increases
Continuing with the White House’s push to revamp the employment landscape, the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) proposed regulations for federally funded construction projects will return to the definition of “prevailing wage” that was last used in 1983. The agency’s proposed changes to the regulations that implement the Davis-Bacon Act are intended to speed up prevailing wage updates and will increase wages for construction workers over time.Continue Reading DOL Returns to Prior Davis-Bacon Act Wage Definition for Construction Industry
As we predicted (here), employees can be compelled to individually arbitrate their Labor Code claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), but an arbitration agreement that prohibits employees from bringing a representative action on behalf of other employees in court violates California public policy. In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., S274671 (July 17, 2023) (“Adolph”), the California Supreme Court analyzed whether an employee retained standing to bring a PAGA action on behalf of other aggrieved employees despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of the employee’s individual PAGA claims. The Court answered with an unequivocal and unanimous “yes.” Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Sets Viking River Cruise Decision Adrift
The recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the emergence of ChatGPT have opened up new possibilities for employers to enhance efficiency and reduce human error. But with these advances comes potential risk. Acknowledging the advent of the use of AI in the workplace, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched its Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative in late 2021. On May 18, 2023, the EEOC released a technical assistance document addressing the use of AI by employers when making employment decisions such as hiring, promotion, and firing. Continue Reading Possible Bias in AI Selectivity? EEOC Issues Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employment Selection Procedures
The California Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Adolph (Erik) v. Uber Technologies, Inc., S274671, on the question of whether Private Attorneys’ General Act claims under Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (PAGA) can be brought on behalf of other employees in court despite a plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate his/her individual PAGA claims. Continue Reading Individual Arbitration Agreements and PAGA Representative Claims—Where Do We Stand Now?
On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down AB 51, a California statute that imposed criminal and civil penalties against employers who required employees to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, finding the statute to be an “unacceptable obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. 2023).Continue Reading Non-Negotiable Arbitration Agreements May Be Required as a Condition of Employment
Electronic monitoring of employees’ remote work has increased in the last few years as employers have become concerned with employee productivity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Monitoring technology can track the websites an employee visits and for how long, the number of keystrokes or mouse movements an employee has in a given time period, when an employee is away from their computer and even what an employee is typing, reading or watching. Though generally legal, the use of this technology has prompted California to propose a bill aimed at, among other things, restricting employers’ use of such technology to specific times of day, activities and locations.Continue Reading Who is Watching The Watchers? California Seeks to Limit Monitoring of Remote Employees
As we predicted in our prior post (here), California passed new pay transparency legislation requiring employers to report contractor compensation data and list employee pay ranges (salary or hourly rates of pay) on job postings. Effective January 1, 2023, Senate Bill 1162, known as the Pay Transparency for Pay Equity Act, mandates that employers submit pay data reports to the California Civil Rights Department revealing compensation paid to contractors broken down by gender, race, and ethnicity. Following Colorado, Washington, and New York City, California employers with 15 or more workers also must disclose salary ranges on all job advertisements, whether posted by the employer or a third party. Employers of any size must provide existing employees with the salary range for their positions if requested.Continue Reading California Passes Public Pay Disclosure Reporting Requirements for Employers Hiring Contract Workers
The three-judge panel that decided AB 51 was (mostly) lawful, and that employers could not retaliate against employees who refused to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, withdrew the decision and agreed to take another look. On August 22, 2022, two of three members of the panel that decided Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta voted to withdraw the ruling sua sponte and agreed to a rehearing in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.Continue Reading Prohibiting Mandatory Arbitration: Ninth Circuit Agrees to a Re-Do