Photo of Michael E. Brewer

Michael E. Brewer

Subscribe to Michael E. Brewer's Posts
Contact:Read more about Michael E. Brewer

Effective Tuesday, March 17, 2020, San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin, and Contra Costa counties imposed Shelter-In-Place Orders. These Orders require all individuals ordered to shelter in place in their residences and for businesses to cease all activities at facilities located within the listed counties and with certain exceptions for: (1) “Essential Businesses” (as defined by the Orders); and (2) “Minimum Basic Operations” for businesses that do not qualify as “Essential Businesses.” The Shelter-In-Place Orders currently remain in effect through April 7. At this time, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma counties have not issued similar mandates.

The intent of the Orders is to ensure the maximum number of people self-isolate in their places of residence to the maximum extent feasible, while enabling essential services to continue, and to slow the spread of Coronavirus (also known as COVID-19) to the maximum extent possible. Although each of the seven Bay Area counties issued a separate Order, the substantive terms of the Orders are the same.

What Businesses are Covered by the Orders?

All businesses with a facility in the above-listed counties, except for “Essential Businesses,” are covered by the Orders. The Orders list 21 categories of Essential Businesses, ranging from healthcare operations and hardware stores to businesses that ship or deliver goods directly to residences. Employees of Essential Businesses may perform travel to/from and related to the Essential Business. The full list of Essential Businesses may be found here:Continue Reading Shelter-In-Place Orders Take Effect In The San Francisco Bay Area

On February 10, 2020, United States District Judge Dolly M. Gee denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin California from enforcing Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) against Postmates Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. Judge Gee concluded: “Plaintiffs have not shown serious questions going to the merits — the critical factor in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction — and, though company plaintiffs have shown some measure of likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of permitting the state to enforce this legislation.”
Continue Reading Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Halt California’s New Statutory “ABC Test” As To Gig Economy Companies And Drivers

2019 kept US employers on their toes. From intensifying scrutiny of independent contractor relationships, data privacy changes, and hostility to arbitration agreements to continued pressure to examine pay data, increasing employee activism and politically charged discourse in the workplace, it has been a busy year!

Click here to continue reading the US Employment Law Digest.

Today California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill making it more difficult for companies to engage independent contractors. (See our previous coverage HERE.) Assembly Bill 5 “will help reduce worker misclassification — workers being wrongly classified as ‘independent contractors’ rather than employees, which erodes basic worker protections like the minimum wage, paid sick days and health insurance benefits,” Newsom wrote in a statement.
Continue Reading The Controversial ABC Test From Dynamex Is Codified In Law — California’s Gig Economy Braces For Change

As previously detailed here, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Epic Systems decision established that requiring employees to waive their right to pursue collective or class actions does not violate the National Labor Relations Act’s “catchall” protection—the right to engage in “concerted activity”—and courts must enforce arbitration agreements as written.

The Supreme Court not only confirmed the legality of class action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act, but it also narrowly construed the NLRA’s catchall provision as focused on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively in the workplace.

The Court’s holding that the right to engage in such “concerted activities” does not guarantee collective or class action procedures underpins a recent NLRB decision concerning issues of first impression: imposing and requiring as a condition for continued employment a new class action waiver rule in response to collective action.Continue Reading Applying Epic Systems, The NLRB Adopts Employer-Friendly Arbitration Stance

As detailed in prior posts, in January, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not plead an actual injury beyond a per se statutory violation to state a claim for statutory liquidated damages or injunctive relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). While recent decisions applying BIPA have been largely Illinois-based, the Ninth Circuit recently applied BIPA in Patel v. Facebook to affirm a lower court’s ruling that plaintiffs in the ongoing Facebook BIPA class action alleged a concrete injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing and that the class was properly certified.

The Ninth Circuit is the first federal circuit court to conclude that a plaintiff alleging a BIPA violation has standing for purposes of Article III of the US Constitution. The ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify BIPA class actions, within and outside of Illinois. 
Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Clears The Way For BIPA Class Actions

On July 22, 2019, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit withdrew its holding that Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court—the landmark California Supreme Court decision that makes it harder for companies to rely on independent contractors—applies retroactively. The panel held instead that the question should be decided by the state’s highest court.
Continue Reading Scratch That: The ABC Test Might Not Apply Retroactively

On July 10, 2019, the California Senate Labor Committee voted in favor of Assembly Bill (AB 5). As we previously reported (see HERE), AB 5 would make it harder for companies to rely on independent contractors because it presumes a worker is an employee unless a hiring entity passes a difficult three-part test. Supporters…

Hiring Entity:  When are gig workers employees?

Four Government Agencies & Courts:  It depends!

Trying to track the employment status of gig workers will make your head spin. Contractors? Employees? Super heroes?

In the last few weeks, four federal and California state agencies and courts — the US Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Labor Commissioner — have all weighed in on the debate. And, the answer is — it depends.

Follow our script below to help make sense of the patchy legal landscape.Continue Reading The Essential Question Of The Gig Economy

In last Thursday’s Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising, the Ninth Circuit made several impactful findings related to the infamous Dynamex decision:

  1. Aligning with several state court decisions supporting retroactivity, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Dynamex’s ABC test applies retroactively.
  2. It also applied Dynamex to a multi-level franchise structure, expanding the test beyond the independent contractor context.
  3. Last, the Court issued guidance to the district court on remand reaffirming the difficulty of “passing” the ABC test.

Continue Reading In Expansive Decision, Ninth Circuit Rules Dynamex Applies Retroactively