California

Subscribe to California via RSS

At noon today, San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin, and Contra Costa counties extended their Shelter-In-Place Orders until at least May 1, 2020. The original Shelter-In-Place Orders were set to expire on April 7. The joint press release may be found here.

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 now remain in effect through “at least May 1, 2020,” with the term “at least” indicating further extensions are likely.

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 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. Information about California’s separate, state-wide Shelter-In-Place Order may be found here.

What Businesses are Covered by the Orders?Continue Reading San Francisco Bay Area Shelter-In-Place Orders Extended Until “At Least” May 1, 2020

Layoffs, reduced schedules, sick leave, and telecommuting—these are just a few of the issues that employers are navigating as they quickly adapt to the effects of the global pandemic. While moving full speed seems to be the only way to keep up with the rapidly-evolving landscape, companies should take a moment to ensure that they…

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…

Last week, in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., No. S246911, after more than two years on review and extensive briefing by amicus curiae, the California Supreme Court unanimously resolved an issue of first impression concerning the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): whether settlement of individual Labor Code claims extinguishes PAGA standing.

California’s Labor Code contains a number of provisions designed to protect the health, safety, and compensation of workers. Among those laws, PAGA provides a mechanism for employees to enforce the Labor Code as the state’s designated proxy. In particular, PAGA authorizes “aggrieved employees” to pursue civil penalties on behalf of the state. Those penalties differ from statutory damages or other penalties an employee may recover individually for alleged Labor Code violations because relief under PAGA is intended to benefit the general public, not the party bringing the action.Continue Reading Employee Remains “Aggrieved” Under PAGA Even After Settling Individual Claims

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

The Ninth Circuit just reiterated one of the late U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s last opinions after the U.S. Supreme Court wiped it out last February. (Decision here.) In February 2019, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Rizo v. Yovino, which held that employers cannot justify a wage differential between men and women…

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

Join us on January 28, 2020 for our California Employment Compensation Update in Los Angeles.

We’ll clarify the impact of employment and compensation developments in California, the US and abroad that raise opportunities for the visionary companies that seize them.

We will offer a choice between two sessions:

1. Predictions for the Year Ahead in…