Welcome to the Weintraub Resources section. Here, you can find our Blogs, Videos, and Podcasts, in which Weintraub attorneys regularly provide insights and updates on legal developments. You can also find upcoming Weintraub Events, as well as firm and client News.


The California Civil Rights Department has Released New Guidance for Employers Required to Report Workforce Data

California law requires private employers with 100 or more employees and/or 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors to annually report pay, demographic, and other workforce data to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). This year, the pay data reporting portal opened on February 1, 2024, and employers have until May 8, 2024 to submit their annual reports. To aid employers, the CRD released updated FAQs as well as new versions of the pay data reporting Excel templates, a user guide, and training slides. The FAQS are available here.

Employers Beware: The Deadline to Comply with Notification Requirement of California’s New Non-Compete Law is Rapidly Approaching!

Last October, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1076 into law and it became effective as of January 1, 2024.  AB 1076 was the Legislature’s attempt to codify the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, which held that non-compete agreements in the employment context are unenforceable unless they fall within one of the three narrow statutory exceptions dealing primarily with the sale of business interests.  AB 1076 makes clear that requiring an employee to enter into a non-compete is unlawful and can subject the employer to penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.

California Supreme Court Determines PAGA Cases May Not be Dismissed Due to Issues of Manageability

Long-time blog readers and CEN watchers will recall that for the last several years, we have been watching several cases discussing whether Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims may be stricken as unmanageable. First, in the Fall of 2021, an appellate court determined that trial courts have inherent authority to strike or limit PAGA claims that could not otherwise be made manageable in order to “preserve judicial resources [and to] prevent trials from becoming excessively complex and time-consuming.” (See Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746).  Just a few months later, a different appellate court disagreed, concluding that while a court may limit the presentation of evidence to ensure a manageable trial, courts had no authority to strike or limit PAGA claims due to unmanageability. (See Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal. App. 5th 685.)

California Employers Will Need to Create Workplace Violence Prevention Plans By July 2024

Most California employers have workplace violence and safety policies as part of their Employee Handbooks, but beginning next year, these policies will need to be updated to comply with new, robust requirements.  In addition, workplace violence incident logs will need to be maintained, and annual employee training will need to be provided.

Where Agreements Won’t Work – A Word to the Wise Regarding Strict Wage and Hour Liability and Related Claims

This article was first published in Volume 29, Issue 2, 2023 of the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, reprinted by permission.

I.      SYNOPSIS

Ed was a vibrant and healthy 85-year-old. One day, he decided to sign an advance healthcare directive providing that if his physical condition ever declined, he wished to remain in his home as long as possible with the help of live-in caregivers and other staff, as needed. Although his wife, Donna, and his daughter, Taylor, tried to assist Ed on their own, Ed’s growing needs became more than they could handle. They decided to bring in a live-in caregiver, Paula, who was a family friend. Paula was loosely hired by all three of them. Ed and his wife, Donna, were trustees of their family revocable trust. Taylor was Ed’s acting agent under his advance healthcare directive. No written employment agreement was signed by the parties. Paula was expected to work a “standard” workday, Monday through Friday, but was expected to be “on-call” during the evenings, weekends, and holidays. The family verbally agreed to pay Paula $500 per week, which was more than she made at her last job, so she felt she was adequately compensated. Moreover, over the years, Ed repeatedly promised her that after he passed, his estate would be sure to “take care of her.” Based on this promise, Paula selflessly cared for Ed until he sadly passed away more than ten years later. She did not pursue any other employment, despite having a number of great opportunities.

2023 Was Another Busy Year in the Legislature – New Employment Law Legislation

The Legislature was busy again in 2023, and the Governor signed a number of employment-related bills. This blog post is not intended to discuss the details of every employment bill that was signed into law. Instead, below is a list of certain bills employers should be aware of, and we invite you to join Weintraub Tobin’s FREE “Year in Review” seminar series on January 10, 2024 and January 17, 2024 where some of the bills, and other employment law developments, will be discussed. Come join the experienced team of employment attorneys at Weintraub Tobin and learn about your new compliance obligations. We look forward to seeing you.

California Employers, Forget About Non-Compete Agreements for Your Employees!

On September 1, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 699 into law, which will bolster California’s prohibition of non-compete agreements.

The prohibition of non-compete agreements is not new news. Non-compete agreements were not enforceable prior to SB 699 being signed into law under California Business and Professions Code section 16600. The Code section explains how every contract restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is void, except under limited statutory exceptions. SB 699, which will be codified as Business and Professions Code section 16600.5 and go into effect on January 1, 2024, reiterates existing law and extends the reach of California’s restriction on non-compete agreements. The new law:

CA Supreme Court Holds Compelling Arbitration of Individual PAGA Claim Does Not Strip Standing to Litigate Representative Claims

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court, in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., addressed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022). The much-anticipated Adolph decision, addresses the question of whether an “aggrieved employee,” who has been compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims (i.e. Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in an individual capacity), loses standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims (i.e. Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by other employees) in court.