The legalization of medical marijuana in several jurisdictions throughout the US presents employers with the difficult task of reconciling their anti-drug policies with those state statutes authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes. Adding an additional layer of complexity to this already uncertain landscape, is the growing number of states that have also legalized marijuana for recreational use. As state marijuana laws continue to grow and develop, employers must stay attune to how they approach employees’ off-duty marijuana use for both medical and recreational purposes.

Continue Reading

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.


Continue Reading

Until death do you rule, and not a single day after.

In Rizo v. Yovino, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a ruling interpreting the Equal Pay Act by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because the Ninth Circuit improperly counted the vote of Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who died 11 days before the ruling was announced.


Continue Reading

“Rowdy” Roddy Piper famously said: “Just when they think they have the answers, I change the questions.”

California employers can relate to this feeling of uncertainty, given a recent trend of California appellate decisions that have upended established legal “answers” regarding certain employment law issues. Following last year’s decision by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex to adopt a new “ABC test” to determine employment status under the Wage Order, and the Court of Appeal’s decision in AMN Healthcare that cast doubt 33 on years of established authority regarding non-solicitation of employee provisions, the Court of Appeal in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. recently adopted a new standard for reporting time pay. Because disputes over reporting time pay may lead to putative class action claims, this decision is particularly important for California employers.

California is one of a few states requiring employers to pay a certain minimum amount to nonexempt employees as “reporting time” (also referred to as “show-up pay”) if the employee reports to work but does not actually work the expected number of hours. Specifically, each of California’s Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders requires employers to pay employees “reporting time pay” for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.”

In Ward v. Tilly’s, a divided Court of Appeal has expanded the “reporting time” obligation to situations where employees are required to contact their employer two hours before on-call shifts—even though they never actually physically report to work.


Continue Reading

To help multi-state employers determine the minimum amount they must pay non-exempt employees, our chart below summarizes state and local increases this year. (Unless otherwise indicated, the following increases are effective January 1, 2019.)

This chart is intended to discuss rate changes that affect employers generally, and may not necessarily cover all industry-specific rate changes.


Continue Reading

Join us at 3:00 pm Thursday, January 24 for our California Employment & Compensation Update in our new Los Angeles office. A range of topics will be covered during our program which will begin with a panel discussion addressing emerging trends in advancing corporate Diversity & Inclusion goals, followed by your choice of updates on

2018 was, without a doubt, another extraordinary year for US employers. The #MeToo movement continues to have a tremendous impact on the workplace. In addition, the thorny issue of how to manage contractor classifications in the gig economy continued to evolve and new DOJ enforcement activity is heightening concerns about no-poaching agreements and other antitrust

This month California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing released an updated Sexual Harassment Poster and Brochure.

Either the poster or the brochure can be distributed to employees to meet legal requirements.

For more on new obligations for California employers with respect to sexual harassment

As we previously discussed here, the United States Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis was a clear win for employers that seek to avoid the expense and disruption of class litigation by resolving disputes individually through binding arbitration. As explained by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, “[i]n bilateral arbitration, parties forego the procedural rigor and appellate review of the courts in order to realize the benefits of private dispute resolution: lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the ability to choose expert adjudicators to resolve specialized disputes.”

For employers looking to take advantage of the benefits of individual arbitration, there are several drafting nuances to consider before rolling out or updating existing arbitration agreements.


Continue Reading

In the wake of the #HeForShe movement, California recently became the first US state to require companies to put female directors on their corporate boards.

Supporters of the law make a convincing business case for gender diversity, citing rigorous research findings showing companies where women are represented at board or top-management levels are also the