The California Supreme Court on June 23, 2014, departed from a prior decision, which had been nullified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, by finding an arbitration agreement that waived the right to bring a class-action suit was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Posts Tagged CaliforniaHR
Known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, Assembly Bill (AB) 1522 passed the Assembly along a party-line vote and is pending in the Senate. The bill would implement a number of new Labor Code provisions requiring employers to provide paid sick leave for their employees. It would apply to all employers regardless of size, and would include public employers, the state and municipalities.
This book summarizes the key substantive employment laws of California and discusses the ways in which they most differ from the federal statutes that guide most of the rest of the country. The book is written from the perspective of an experienced HR professional who, for the first time, is tasked with managing a workforce in California. Such a person would likely ask basic questions, like:
In a long-awaited decision, California’s highest court on May 29, 2014, affirmed a 2012 state court of appeals decision vacating a $15 million judgment in a misclassification class action brought under state law. In the lawsuit, which was brought against U.S.
California voters legalized the use of medical marijuana in 1996. Twenty years later, in 2016, will they also give the nod to the recreational use of marijuana?
As the days grow warmer, California employers with outdoor places of employment should think about compliance with California’s Heat Illness Prevention Regulations (Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 8, § 3395). To comply with the regulations, California employers should take four essential steps:
*Develop and implement written procedures for addressing heat illness prevention.
*Train employees and supervisors.
*Provide adequate water.
*Provide adequate shade.
Just about every place you go, everywhere you turn, people are tapping on their smartphones. And as the devices get more sophisticated, the legal issues surrounding them are getting more complicated.
Businesses are grappling with all of these issues in the workplace. With their electronic devices, workers can record discussions in the office, or take pictures or videos of co-workers.
Ambiguity in settlement agreements can sabotage finality and certainty as a recent California decision shows. Where a settlement agreement is silent regarding litigation costs, an employee can obtain mandatory costs as the prevailing party under state law because the settlement proceeds constitute the required “net monetary recovery,” the California Court of Appeal ruled.
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 2, 2014, in an appeal brought by a former employee who claims the lower courts incorrectly determined that his disability discrimination claim was barred because he misappropriated someone else’s Social Security number to apply for the position.
Covered San Francisco Bay Area employers without an already-existing and compliant commuter benefits plan have until Sept. 30, 2014, to select at least one of four commuter benefit options, notify employees of how to take advantage of the benefits, and register with the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program (CBP).
Sending a former employee’s wrongful termination claim to an arbitrator, the California Court of Appeal ruled that his employment arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and deserved to be enforced. The court found that the agreement’s limitations on discovery and on “just cause” terminations, among others, were not substantively unconscionable, and so reversed a lower court order denying arbitration.