Publications

On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macys West Stores, Inc.  In that case, Diaz brought California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims against her former employer.  The district court compelled both Plaintiff’s individual and non-individual PAGA claims to arbitration, reasoning that the arbitration agreement’s broad language must be interpreted to encompass both types of claims.  Macy’s appealed.

Read More

At the request of the 9^th Circuit, the California Supreme Court recently clarified the definition of “hours worked” under the Labor Code. In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, the employees worked at a solar power facility, which was located on privately-owned land. To reach the actual worksite, employees had to enter onto private land, present a badge at a security gate (at which point a security guard might “peer” into their car or truck), and then drive an additional 10–15 minutes to access the employee parking lot. It was estimated that the security check could take between 5-30 minutes. This would happen again at the end of the day. Also, because there were endangered species present on the privately-owned land, there were restrictions employees were expected to follow while driving on the road, including not exceeding a certain speed limit, and refraining from honking horns or playing loud music. The Court was asked to answer two questions with respect to the definition of “hours worked” as discussed below.

Read More

In late March 2024, California Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill, AB 2751, that would recognize a right for employees in California to “disconnect” or ignore communications from their employer during certain non-work hours.  The Bill, in its current form, requires an employer to establish a workplace policy that will allow employees “the right to disconnect” from communications from their employer during non-working hours, except for emergencies and/or scheduling purposes.  The policy must define working vs. non-working hours and make clear that employees have the right to ignore communications from the employer during the policy’s specified non-working hours.  The proposed law also provides employees the right to file a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner if the employer engages in a pattern of violations of this new law. Finally, the proposed new law states that while violations may not be punished as a misdemeanor, the employer could be subject to a fine of not less than $100 as a result of a pattern of violation of the proposed new law.

Read More

If you’re a California employer, I hope the following is not news to you.  Pursuant to SB 553, most employers in California are required to put in place an effective Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (“WVPP”) by July 1, 2024. SB 553 added section 6401.9 to the California Labor Code to address the requirements for a compliant WVPP. 

Read More

In December 2023, the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”) filed the first-of-its-kind lawsuit under the California Fair Chance Act (“Act”) against Ralphs Grocery Store (“Ralphs”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Read More