California

Subscribe to California via RSS

California legislators met on April 11, 2023 to discuss a proposed overhaul of employment-related criminal background checks. Simply put, if the Fair Chance Act of 2023 (SB 809) is passed into law, California will have the most restrictive criminal background check law in the country, and will significantly limit the way California employers can vet applicants for employment. Under existing state law, California employers may conduct a criminal background check for most positions only after making an initial offer of employment, and they may make adverse employment decisions based on criminal history only after conducting an individualized assessment that considers the nature of the offense and the duties of the job. While these existing restrictions are significant in their own right, the proposed new law will effectively eliminate criminal history consideration in most circumstances, allowing legislators to further reduce barriers to employment for people with criminal histories.

The Fair Chance Act will, among other things, “make it an unlawful employment practice to take adverse action against an employee or discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment based on their arrest or conviction history.” SB 809. In essence, the proposed law will all but ban employment-related criminal background checks, except for positions for which such checks are authorized or required by statute. And in the limited circumstances where criminal history checks are permitted, the Fair Chance Act will require employers to post a clear and conspicuous notice informing applicants and employees of their rights. The new law also will impose on employers additional document and data retention obligations for completed background checks.Continue Reading California Seeks to Ban Most Criminal Background Checks

New Jersey may have started a trend. As of April 10, covered New Jersey employers must now comply with new requirements under the New Jersey mini-WARN Act (see our blog here). New York and California are giving chase, with proposed amendments to New York State’s WARN Act regulations, New York State’s WARN Act, and California’s WARN Act. And New York employers should take note: New York’s WARN Portal is set to go live this month.

Proposed Amendments to NYS WARN Regulations–And a New NYS WARN Portal

The New York State Department of Labor has proposed amendments to the New York State WARN Act (“NYS WARN”) regulations that are intended to account for the post-pandemic workforce, including clarifying how remote work impacts NYS WARN compliance and simplifying language to ensure employers understand their obligations under the law. The Department of Labor is accepting comments to the proposed regulations until May 30, 2023. 

Key items in the proposed amendments to the NYS WARN regulations include:

  • Remote employees included in threshold count: The employers covered by NYS WARN has been expanded to include any employer who employs 50 or more full-time employees, who work at the single site of employment plus individuals that work remotely but are based at the employment site, which may include remote employees in New York as well as other states.
  • Certain notices must be provided electronically: Notices being sent to the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner (“Commissioner”) must be provided electronically and are no longer required to have original signatures.
  • Notice must include additional information: The notice to the Commissioner must include more detailed information about the affected employees, including telephone numbers, job titles, and whether they are paid on an hourly, salary or commission basis. The notice to affected employees must include any other information relevant to their separation, such as information related to any financial incentives an employee may receive if they remain employed by the employer until the effective date of the employment loss, as well as available dislocated worker information.
  • The exceptions for notice are changing:
    • Faltering company exception reduced: The faltering company exception will apply only to plant closings, and will no longer apply to mass layoffs, relocations or reductions in hours.
    • Unforeseeable business circumstances exception expanded: The unforeseeable business circumstances exception will be expanded to expressly include in certain circumstances a public health emergency (including a pandemic) or a terrorist attack.
    • Exception to notice requires determination by Commissioner: The 90-day notice period can be reduced in limited circumstances (including under the faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disaster exceptions) only if:
      • The employer submits a request for consideration for eligibility of an exception to the Commissioner within 10 business days of providing the required notice under NYS WARN to the Commissioner (unless the Commissioner grants an extension);
      • The employer provides a reason for reducing the notice period in addition to any other documents the Commissioner may require; and
      • The Commissioner determines that the employer has established all of the elements of the claimed exception.
  • The calculation of back pay is being clarified for hourly employees: The calculation to be used to determine the average rate of compensation and final rate of compensation for hourly employees is clarified. Such calculation uses the number of hours worked instead of the number of days worked. The days worked method of calculation should still be used for non-hourly employees.
  • The use of payment in lieu of notice is being clarified: Liability for an employer’s failure to give the required notice to employees under NYS WARN will be reduced by amounts paid to an employee in lieu of notice, except where the following conditions are met (then such payments will be considered wages for the notice period):
    • There is an employment agreement or uniformly applied company policy that requires the employer to give the employee a certain amount of notice before a layoff or separation;
    • The employee is laid off without the required notice; and
    • The employer pays the employee an amount equal to the employee’s wages and any benefits for the required notice period.

Continue Reading Employer WARN-ING: Potential Changes to New York’s and California’s WARN Acts Barreling Down the Turnpike

Together we navigated operational challenges caused by the pandemic, and together we will weather this. What follows is information and practical advice for employers concerned with satisfying their payroll obligations in the near term in the face of their bank falling into receivership.

  • Identify the “universe” of employment-related expenses. This will include payroll, benefits, bonus and commission comp, insurance, and severance obligations.
  • Understand that liability for unpaid wages can be significant. For example, liability in California includes:
    • Back payment of any unpaid wage amounts that employees prove they were legally entitled to.
    • Interest of up to 10% of the unpaid wages.
    • Penalties for late payment of wages equal to: (i) $100 for the first violation; and (ii) for each subsequent violation, $200 plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld. Penalties may apply for each pay period that wages remain unpaid.
    • If any employees leave the company after the payday date, the company can be liable for waiting time penalties for late payment of final wages. Waiting time penalties are equal to 1 day’s wages for each day an employee’s final wages are unpaid, up to a maximum penalty of 30 days’ wages.
    • Companies may be required to pay employees’ attorney’s fees if the employees prevail in litigation.
    • Criminal liability for wage theft if the act is “intentional.” Felony cases are punishable by up to 3 years in prison.  

Continue Reading Navigating Fallout From a Bank Receivership | Practical Tips for US Employers

California employers may soon need to rethink and revise their time-rounding policies–even if they’re neutral. In Camp v. Home Depot, USA, the California Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether, under California law, employers may use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for purposes of paying wages. A decision limiting or prohibiting the practice could require major changes to common timekeeping practices for payroll purposes, so employers–especially those engaging in time rounding–will want to keep a close eye on developments.

Here’s what’s happened so far, and what employers should do now.Continue Reading Is Time Rounding Over for California Employers? The California Supreme Court Will Weigh In

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether an employer is required to provide pay for employees taking short-term military leave when it offers other types of short-term paid leave. In Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit revived a class action claiming discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for the failure to pay short-term military leave.

What is USERRA?

USERRA—a federal law applicable to both private and public employers—provides that a service member employee is entitled to the same “rights and benefits” during a military leave as similarly situated employees on non-military leave. Under USERRA , where the benefits of comparable non-military leaves differ, the employer must give the service member “the most favorable treatment” accorded to any comparable non-military leave.Continue Reading Paid Leave For USERRA? We Recommend a Comparability Analysis

California’s latest attempt to restrict employment arbitration was foiled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last Wednesday. On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel decided that AB 51 (which prohibits employers from “forcing” job applicants or employees to enter into pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements covering certain discrimination and retaliation claims) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior decision in the same case, issued by the same three-judge panel, which partially upheld AB 51 in 2021. While we expect the California Attorney General to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s February 15 decision, California employers can breathe a sigh of relief for now knowing it’s still lawful for most to continue to require arbitration agreements.Continue Reading California Employers Still Can Require Arbitration. For Now.

New year, new Cal/OSHA COVID-19 regulations. The non-emergency COVID-19 prevention regulations (“New Regulations”) still await the Office of Administrative Law’s approval, but will likely take effect in the next few weeks. Employers eagerly await the end of the Emergency Temporary Standard’s (“ETS”) more burdensome requirements, such as exclusion pay and reporting outbreaks to local health…

The new year always brings new challenges for employers, but California employers in particular face a world of change in 2023.

In our 75-minute “quick hits” format, we help you track what California employers need to keep top-of-mind for 2023 and provide practical takeaways to help you navigate the new landscape.

This webinar helps to…

In less than two months, on January 1, 2023, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as revised by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) will take effect fully in the job applicant and employment context.

And with respect to job applicants and personnel, businesses subject to the CCPA will be required to (i) issue further revised privacy notices, (ii) be ready to respond to data subject requests, (iii) have determined if they sell or share for cross context behavioral advertising personal information about them, and (iv) have determined if they use or disclose sensitive personal information about them outside of specific purposes. If employers sell, share for cross-context behavioral advertising, or use or disclose sensitive personal information outside of limited purposes, numerous additional compliance obligations apply. See also our related previous post: Employers Must Prepare Now for New California Employee Privacy Rights.

Here are some key recommendations on what employers should do now:

1. Review contracts with parties to whom you disclose personal information about applicants and personnel. The CCPA prescribes certain types of clauses that have to appear in agreements between parties exchanging personal information, and you will have to include certain data processing clauses if you do not want to be considered to be “selling” (which the CCPA defines to mean disclosing in exchange for monetary or valuable consideration) or “sharing” (which the CCPA defines to mean disclosing for the purposes of cross-context behavioral advertising) personal information and offer related opt-out processes. It is not practical for employers to offer opt-out rights in most scenarios, due to the CCPA’s non -discrimination requirements. The CCPA regulations, which are currently being revised by the California Privacy Protection Agency (latest draft as of this publication is available here), include additional requirements. Businesses should continue to update such contracts with parties it discloses personal information to.

2. Prepare/revise notices at collection and include HR data in your online CCPA Privacy Policy. At collection notices in the employment context have been required under the CCPA since 2020, but new specific disclosure requirements apply from January 1, 2023. Your comprehensive online CCPA privacy policy will also have to reflect your processing of HR data. You should consider updating/preparing a privacy notice at collection that is specific to the CCPA and separate from any privacy notice you might use to address privacy laws in other jurisdictions, since California laws establish increasingly unique requirements and use unique terms that may be difficult to reconcile with those of other jurisdictions (from January 1, 2023, businesses must use specific terms from the CCPA to describe categories of personal information in all notices at collection). At the same time, you have to be mindful of setting or negating privacy expectations. If you issue privacy notices to job applicants and personnel that merely address CCPA disclosure requirements, the recipients of such notices may develop privacy expectations that could later hinder you in conducting investigations or deploying monitoring technologies intended to protect data security, co-workers, trade secrets and compliance objectives.Continue Reading California Privacy Law Action Items for Employers

Effective January 1, 2023, California employers must continue to provide notification to employees of COVID-19 exposure in the workplace through 2023, but will be able to satisfy the notification obligation by displaying a notice in the workplace. On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2693 into law, revising and extending the existing obligation for…