Effective Friday, March 20, 2020, Governor Newsom imposed a California-wide Shelter-in-Place via Executive Order (“Executive Order”). This Executive Order comes on the heels of numerous shelter-in-place orders issued by individual counties and cities across the state in the past week. The Governor’s Executive Order requires all individuals living in California to stay home or at
Unfortunately, the economic reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, including recent shelter in place orders in California, is forcing employers to implement a range of cost-cutting measures – furloughs, temporary office and location closings, and layoffs. As employers continue to adjust operations during these extraordinary times, it is essential to remember the notice obligation under the…
As previously reported, effective Tuesday, March 17, 2020, San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin, and Contra Costa counties imposed Shelter-In-Place Orders (“SF Bay Area Orders”). The SF Bay Area Orders require all individuals to shelter in place in their residences and businesses to cease all activities at facilities located within…
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:
Today is International Women’s Day. The day marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity.
In our global gender pay gap thought leadership series, we’ve highlighted the numerous ways governments around the world are taking actions aimed at closing the gap. In the US, the movement to prohibit the practice of inquiring about an applicant’s salary history continues to gain steam. Cities and states across the country have enacted legislation making it unlawful to inquire about prospective employees’ salary history. Proponents of salary history bans argue that using past compensation in future employment decisions perpetuates existing pay disparities among women and minorities.
Alyssa Milano tweeted #MeToo just about one year ago. Since then, we’ve seen unprecedented attention on sexual harassment in the workplace and a number of high profile individuals have been taken to task.
For employers, the spotlight, viral encouragement to come forward and public scrutiny is translating to an outpouring of claims and lawsuits. Indeed, in September 2018, the EEOC reported a surge in sexual harassment filings–more than a 50 percent increase in suits challenging sexual harassment over FY 2017.
In late May, California announced new amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) strengthening the protections afforded to applicants and employees, including those who are undocumented, on the basis of national origin. The changes go into effect July 1, 2018. The new regulations significantly broaden the definition of “national origin” as well as conduct that constitutes discrimination based on national origin.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker v. Superior Court unleashed a flood of single-plaintiff and class-action lawsuits involving alleged violations of California’s meal and rest period laws. Under California law, employees are entitled to take at least one 30-minute uninterrupted, off-duty meal break no later than the end of their 5th hour of work. If employees work over 10 hours, they must be provided a second 30-minute meal period. Similarly, employees must also receive 10-minute rest periods for each 4 hour-period worked or major fraction thereof.
On February 8, 2018, in what is believed to be the first time a gig economy case has been fully decided on the merits, a California federal judge ruled in favored in favor of the company and held that the delivery driver was properly classified as an independent contractor.
The opinion of US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley states that “[a]fter considering all of the Borello factors as a whole in light of the trial record, the Court finds that Grubhub has satisfied its burden of showing that Mr. Lawson was properly classified as an independent contractor.”
In rejecting the driver’s claim that he was actually an employee entitled to minimum wage, overtime and other benefits associated with employee status, the Court awarded the gig economy a significant victory.