THE NATIONAL Labor Relations Board has issued a decision that non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses in employee severance agreements are illegal.
The board ruled that these provisions stifle employees’ and ex-employees’ rights under Title 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to discuss work and their employer with one another, among other things.
Since the NLRB’s decision applies to both unionized and non-unionized workers, legal experts advise all employers to revisit their severance agreement templates. However, the decision only covers employees – and not severance agreements for supervisors or managers, who are not afforded rights under Title 7.
Decision is far-reaching In the case before the NLRB, an employer decided to lay off a group of union workers and offered them a severance agreement that included them receiving additional months of pay and benefits depending on their tenure with the company.
It also included a standard confidentiality clause and non-disparagement clause that is found in many severance agreements:

Confidentiality Agreement. “The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.”

Non-Disparagement Agreement. “At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents, and representatives.”

The ruling

The board ruled that merely including non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements in severance agreements constituted unfair labor practices under Title 7, which guarantees employees (in part):

“The right to self-organization … and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
Translation: Workers have the right to discuss their jobs and even complain about their employer and management to one another.

The takeaway

The ruling may be appealed, but for now it stands and is not on hold. The decision will affect employers in virtually every industry and regardless of whether they have union workers or not.
If you plan to continue using severance agreements going forward, you should consult your legal counsel, particularly if your current agreements contain the clauses that offended the NLRB.

A NEW STATE law that allows for digital license plates to be installed on vehicles in California, may have created a privacy nightmare for employers.
The Motor Vehicle Digital Number Plates Act, which took effect Jan. 1, enables fleet and commercial vehicle owners to purchase and install digital license plates and soon-to-be-approved alternative devices for tags, stickers, tabs, and registration codes that can track vehicles and make registration easier.
The new law has significant implications for fleet and commercial vehicle owners that want to track vehicles using a digital license plate or alternative GPS device, and they will need to follow the law’s driver disclosure requirements to avoid fines.

What employers can and can’t do

The law allows fleet and commercial vehicle owners to track vehicles through the digital license plate as long as it is “strictly necessary for the performance of the employee’s duties.” Employers may only monitor them during work hours.
If you choose to monitor employees, you are required to provide them with a notice, which under AB 984 must – at a minimum – include the following:

• A description of the activities that will be monitored.
• A description of the worker data that will be collected.
• A notification of whether the data gathered through monitoring will be used to make or inform any employment-related decisions, including disciplinary and termination decisions.
• A description of the vendors or other third parties, if any, to which information collected through monitoring will be disclosed or transferred.
• Names of personnel authorized to access the data.
• Dates, times, and frequency of monitoring.
• Where the data will be stored and for how long.
• A notification of employees’ rights to disable monitoring, including vehicle location technology, outside of work hours.

Firms that violate the law can be subject to:

• Civil penalties of $250 for the initial violation, and
• $1,000 per employee for each subsequent violation.

For subsequent violations, penalties will be calculated per employee, per violation, and per day an employer monitors its workers without proper notice.

The takeaway

With potential civil penalties at stake, employers that want to use these plates should tread carefully, legal experts say.
If you want to use them, you should revise your employee handbook to include the required notice. Additionally, if you plan to monitor employees using these plates, ensure you get their signatures on the disclosure form.
Be aware that you may need to comply with other legal requirements to protect your employees’ privacy, including how you handle, store, and convey data from the plates.

 

A U.S. COURT of Appeals has struck down a landmark California law that prohibits employers from requiring their workers to sign agreements to arbitrate any disputes arising from their employment.
The ruling clears the way for employers to continue using arbitration agreements without risking criminal liability that the law – AB 51 – calls for. The law took effect Jan. 1, 2020, but after a coalition of employers led by the California Chamber of Commerce sued to block the measure’s implementation, a lower-court judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting enforcement until the matter could be resolved by the courts.
Arbitration agreements usually require both the employer and employee to submit any employment-related disputes to arbitration, rather than to the traditional court process. They are designed to reduce tension and save both parties money and time.
The Chamber said the Feb. 15, 2023 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the law was a win for the state’s employers. The business advocacy group had asserted that the law contradicted federal legislation and would result in increased litigation and higher costs for employers and workers alike.
The ruling by the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction order and holding that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

What did AB 51 require?

The law made it a criminal misdemeanor for an employer to require an existing employee or a job applicant to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.
However, due to a quirk in the law, even though an employer could be subject to criminal prosecution if it required employees to sign arbitration agreements, the contracts, if signed, would still be enforceable.
The law was written in this way to avoid conflicting with the FAA. But in the end, the court opined that AB 51 was preempted by the federal law after all.

The takeaway

The ruling paves the way for employers to continue using arbitration agreements with employees in the Golden State. That said, if you are using such agreements or plan to, you should consult with your legal counsel to ensure your agreement is up to date.
If the case is not appealed, the court’s opinion will likely lead to the law being nullified.
But an appeal would be an uphill battle, legal observers say. “SCOTUS (the U.S. Supreme Court) has clearly said that state rules burdening the formation of arbitration agreements are at odds with the FAA,” the law firm of Fisher Phillips wrote in a blog about the ruling.
One important note: The Ninth Circuit’s decision does not affect the federal Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which gives employees the right to opt for arbitration agreements and class- or collective-action waivers if they are making sexual assault or sexual harassment claims.

A slew of new laws and regulations that will affect California businesses are taking effect for 2023.

Last year was a busy one, with ground-breaking new laws on employee pay disclosures, a law prohibiting discrimination against cannabis-using employees and another expanding the circumstances when employees can take leave to care for a loved one. The following are the top 10 laws and regulations that employers in the Golden State need to stay on top of.

1.  Pay disclosure

This sweeping law in part requires more disclosure of pay information by employers. Under current law, employers are required to provide the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request by a job applicant. SB 1162 goes a step further by:

• Requiring employers, upon request by a current employee, to provide the pay scale of the position they are employed in.
• Requiring employers with 15 or more workers to include pay scale in any job postings for open positions.
• Requiring employers to maintain records of job titles and wage rate history for each employee while employed for the company, as well as three years after their employment ceases.

Note: The law defines “pay scale” as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer “reasonably expects” to pay for the position. Penalties range from $100 to $10,000 per violation. This law took effect Jan. 1, 2023.

 

 2.  State of emergency and staff

This new law, SB 1044, bars an employer, in the event of a state of emergency or emergency condition, from taking or threatening adverse action against workers who refuse to report to, or leave, a workplace because they feel unsafe. “Emergency condition” is defined as:

• Conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property caused by natural forces or a criminal act.
• An order to evacuate a workplace, worksite or worker’s home, or the school of a worker’s child due to a natural disaster or a criminal act.

SB 1044 also bars employers from preventing employees from using their mobile phones to seek emergency assistance, assess the safety of the situation or communicate with another person to confirm their safety. The law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2023, does not cover first responders and health care workers.

 

3. Cannabis use and discrimination

This law bars employers from discriminating in hiring, termination or other conditions of employment based on employees using cannabis while off duty. The bill’s author says the legislation is necessary because THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, can stay in a person’s system after they are no longer impaired. As a result, drug testing may detect THC in an employee’s system even if they used it weeks earlier and it is having no effect on their job performance. AB 2188 does not require employers to permit employees to be high while working. The bill would exempt construction trade employees and would not preempt state or federal laws that require employees to submit to drug testing. This law takes effect Jan. 1, 2024.

4.  Leaves of absence

The California Family Rights Act and the state’s paid sick leave law allow employees to take leave to care for a family member, defined as a spouse, registered domestic partner, child, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild or sibling. The definition has been expanded to include “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent of a family relationship.”

5.  Contractor workers’ comp

Starting July 1, the following contractors must carry workers’ compensation coverage regardless of if they have employees or not:

• Concrete (C-8 license)
• Heating and air conditioning (C-20)
• Asbestos abatement (C-22), and
• Tree service (D-49).

Starting Jan. 1, 2026, all licensed contractors must have coverage.

6.  OSHA citation postings

Under current law, employers that receive citations and orders from OSHA are required to post them in or near the place the violation occurred, in order to warn employees about a potential hazard. Starting Jan. 1, 2023, they must post the notice not only in English, but also: Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin), Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Armenian and Punjabi.

7.  Permanent COVID standard

Cal/OSHA has a permanent COVID-19 prevention standard that will sunset in 2024. The new standard, which replaces the temporary emergency standard the agency had implemented, should provide more certainty for prevention procedures and practices. Here are the main takeaways:

• Employers are no longer required to pay employees while they are excluded from work due to COVID-19, or to screen employees daily.
• Employers must still notify and provide paid testing to employees who had a close contact in the workplace.
• Employers can now incorporate written COVID-19 procedures into their Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.

8.  CalSavers expanded

SB 1126 requires any person or entity with at least one employee to either provide them with access to a retirement program like a 401(k) plan or enroll them in the state-run CalSavers program. Prior to this new law only companies with five or more employees that do not offer a retirement plan are required to enroll their workers in CalSavers.

9.  Bereavement leave

Employers with five or more workers are required to provide up to five days of bereavement leave upon the death of a family member, under a new law starting in 2023. This leave may be unpaid, but the law allows workers to use existing paid leave available to them, such as accrued vacation days, paid time off or sick leave. Employers are authorized to require documentation to support the request for leave.

10.  PFL wage replacement

This law was passed last year but does not take effect until 2025. Existing California law allows employees to apply for Paid Family Leave and State Disability Insurance, both of which provide partial wage replacement benefits when employees take time off work for various reasons under the California Family Rights Act. Starting in 2025, low-wage earners (those who earn up to 70% of the state average quarterly wage) will be eligible for a higher percentage of their regular wages under the state’s PFL and SDI benefit programs.

GOVERNOR GAVIN Newsom has signed into law legislation that would bar employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants who use cannabis on their time off.
The law amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to prohibit discrimination against an individual based on “an employer-required drug screening test” that detects
the presence of “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids.”
The new law does not bar employers from drug-testing, but it does impose restrictions on what they can do in response to a positive test.
The law, AB 2188, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and job prospects, or otherwise penalizing them for either:
• Their use of cannabis off the job and away from work, or
• An employer-required drug test that detects cannabis in their system (from either a hair, blood, urine or bodily fluid sample).

Employer rights

The law is not a green light for workers to use or possess cannabis on the job. Also, it won’t impinge on an employer’s rights to maintain a drug-free workplace.
They do also have some leeway in trying to judge someone’s impairment, but it comes down to the type of test they use.

Acceptable tests

There are two types of tests:
• Ones that detect the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chemical compound in cannabis that causes impairment and psychoactive effects.
• Ones that detect the presence of nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites, which is what is left after the body metabolizes THC. These metabolites do not indicate that an individual is impaired, but only reveal whether they have consumed cannabis recently (up to a month in the case of a urine test).
Under the new law, employers would be authorized to take disciplinary action if a THC test is positive, but not if they detect nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their system. The latter is the more common type of test available.

Exemptions

There are some exemptions in AB 2188, in particular:
• It does not apply to workers in the building and construction trades. Employers would still be allowed to make employment decisions for workers and applicants who use cannabis in their off hours and test positive for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites.
• The law does not apply to applicants or employees hired for positions that require a federal government background investigation or security clearance in accordance with regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Defense or other federal agencies.
• The law does not preempt state or federal laws requiring applicants or employees to be tested for controlled substances as a condition of employment, receiving federal funding or federal licensing-related benefits, or entering into a federal contract.

The takeaway

Employers have time to change any policies they have in place concerning drug-testing and cannabis use. The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2024.
Remember, you can still take action against someone who is impaired at work.

THE U.S. Supreme Court has put a significant dent in California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which in recent years has resulted in a surge in legal actions against California employers by their workers.
The law has been a huge thorn in the side of employers, who have been on the receiving end of litigation by workers who allege Labor Code violations.
The high court ruled that employers can compel arbitrations for employee-initiated PAGA actions. The court also held that if a plaintiff in a PAGA action is bound to arbitration, they automatically lose standing to prosecute claims on behalf of other “aggrieved” employees and remaining PAGA claims must be dismissed.
This is good news for businesses. Those that move to cement policies that comport with the new decision, will have a chance to drastically reduce their exposure should they be targeted by one of these actions. And because various court rulings have expanded the law’s breadth, PAGA has been a source of confusion among employers. The new ruling provides clarity.

The history of PAGA

The law was enacted in 2004, after the Legislature grew concerned that the state lacked the resources to fully enforce the California Labor Code.
PAGA permits employees to sue for civil penalties on behalf of themselves, fellow employees, and the State of California for alleged Labor Code violations. If they are filing on behalf of other employees, the other workers do not participate in the lawsuit.
The employee in essence acts as the state’s watchdog; they need not suffer any actual harm from an alleged violation in order to file a lawsuit. One employee has the ability to file a suit alleging multiple Labor Code violations.

For any provision of the Labor Code that does not specify a civil penalty, PAGA permits employees to seek a default penalty of up to $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for an initial violation, and up to $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for a subsequent violation.
If a suit is successful, the state receives 75% of the damages and the rest is distributed among the aggrieved employees.
The number of PAGA lawsuits filed in California on behalf of groups of workers has skyrocketed since 2014, when the California Supreme Court held that because PAGA plaintiffs step into the state’s shoes, their claims cannot be forced into individual arbitration.

A resounding decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling in the case of Viking River Cruises Inc. vs. Moriana is likely to stem a flood of lawsuits filed in recent years accusing companies of widespread wage law
violations.
The court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act, which states that in employer-worker agreements employees are required to arbitrate legal claims, trumps the earlier California Supreme Court decision barring forced arbitration.
SCOTUS ruled that PAGA plaintiffs can only establish standing to sue by first alleging an individual claim. And since the FAA requires individual claims to go to arbitration if a worker has
signed an arbitration agreement, the plaintiff cannot add additional claims for other employees, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the decision.

Here’s what employers should take away from the decision:
• Individual PAGA claims can be arbitrated if an employee has signed a contract agreeing to arbitrate Labor Code and other employment-related actions.
• PAGA claims for other alleged aggrieved employees that the complaining employee includes in the lawsuit are not subject to arbitration, and those claims should be dismissed.
• If you have arbitration agreements for your workers, you should revisit them to ensure they allow you to compel arbitration of PAGA claims.

THE WAY courts have interpreted a California law – the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which has been on the books for 18 years – has led to an explosion of lawsuits against employers during the last few years.

The law has generated more than 20,000 lawsuits since 2017 at an average cost of $1.1 million per case, according to one study.

PAGA permits employees to sue for civil penalties on behalf of themselves, fellow workers and the state for alleged labor code violations. If a suit is successful, the state receives 75% of the damages with the employee receiving the balance.
As a result, California employers face increasing litigation uncertainty that traditional insurance may do little to mitigate.
The employee in essence acts as the state’s watchdog; he or she need not suffer any actual harm from an alleged violation in order to file a lawsuit. One employee has the ability to file a suit alleging multiple labor code violations.
The result? An average of 15 PAGA notice letters arrive at the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency daily.

How did we get here?

The law was enacted in 2004 to improve California Labor Code enforcement by empowering employees to pursue violations when the state has insuffi cient resources to pursue them.
The growth in litigation started after a California Supreme Court decision in 2009, holding that PAGA suits did not have to meet the certification requirements that apply to class-action lawsuits.
Litigation activity jumped significantly again in 2014 after the state Supreme Court held that employees could not waive their rights to fi le PAGA claims when they reach arbitration agreements in disputes with their employers.
Three years later, the court ruled that employees were generally entitled to request and receive large amounts of information from employers early in the litigation.
The high cost of providing the information gives employers an incentive to settle claims quickly.
Finally, an appellate court ruling in 2018 gave employees the right to sue over alleged violations that do not directly affect them, so long as at least one violation does.

What’s being claimed?

 

PAGA claims can also involve allegations of discrimination, retaliation and failure to protect the health and safety of employees. There are even COVID-19-related claims. One allegation triggers multiple other ones related to the first, such as failure to pay all earned wages, failure to pay wages in a timely manner, and so on. One potential bright spot: In December 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether California employers may enter voluntary agreements with employees in which the employee agrees to pursue only their individual claim and
not bring a PAGA claim. A decision is expected this summer.

Insurance implications

One issue for employers is that employment practices liability insurance typically won’t cover wage and hour disputes or signifi cantly sublimit the amount of coverage available for defense costs only.
Also, EPLI policies usually carve out coverage for wage and hour claims under PAGA representative actions.

Directors and officers liability policies exclude wage and hour claims.
One option is wage and hour insurance, which most likely would provide defense and indemnity coverage for PAGA claims that allege violations of wage and hour laws and regulations.
However, these policies are expensive and usually have quite high retentions, which could price out most smaller employers.

THE DEADLINE is fast approaching for employers with five or more workers in California, and who do not already off er their employees a retirement plan, to register their staff for the CalSavers Retirement Savings Program.

Only California employers that do not off er retirement plans are required to register for CalSavers and there are different registration deadlines depending on employer size, staggered over a few years as follows:

Employers with 100 or more workers – The deadline for registration was June 30, 2020.
Employers with 50 or more workers – The deadline for registration was June 30, 2021.
Employers with five or more workers – The deadline for registration is June 30, 2022.

Employers can register anytime to start the program for their workers. Firms with fewer than five employees are exempt, but they too can sign their workers up for CalSavers.

Employers that don’t provide a retirement plan for their workers, and who fail to register, can face a penalty of $250 per employee, as well as additional penalties for sustained noncompliance.

If you already have a qualified retirement plan for your employees, you do not have to participate.

 

How CalSavers works

Participating employers will deduct a default rate of 5% of pay from the paycheck of each employee at least 18 years old and deposit it into the individual’s CalSavers account. Employees can choose other rates as well.

Employee participation is voluntary, and they can opt out at any time. Regardless of whether any employees want to sign up for a plan, applicable employers are required to register and offer the program to all current employees and new hires.

The deduction amount will automatically escalate one percentage point each year to a maximum of 8%, unless the individual employee elects a different amount, elects out of autoescalation or completely opts out of the program.

Business owners who are employees of their business can also participate. Business owners who are not employees may enroll as an individual and make automatic contributions every month. There are no costs for businesses to sign up and facilitate the program for their employees.

Employers can register here. Once set up and employees have signed up, the employer will be responsible for taking off the chosen deduction for each employee and transferring it to CalSavers at each pay period.

For employees

A CalSavers account is a personal Roth Individual Retirement Account (Roth IRA) overseen by the CalSavers Retirement Savings Investment Board.

Here’s some information employees need to know:
• A portion of their pay is automatically deducted after taxes are taken out and transferred to an IRA that belongs to them.
• Employees can customize their account by setting their own contribution rate (between 1% and 8%), as well as choose the investments they want to put their money in.
• The account is portable: They keep it if they leave their job.

 

EVERY YEAR starts with a flurry of new laws and regulations that California employers have to contend with.
And 2022 is no different as the California legislature had a busy year and the stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in more activity. The end result is another round of new laws that employers need to stay on top of so they don’t run afoul of them.
With no further ado, here are the top regulations and laws affecting California businesses.

 

1. Big change to Cal/OSHA citations

SB 606 adds two new Cal/OSHA violation categories for purposes of citations and abatement orders: “enterprisewide” and “egregious” violations. Cal/OSHA can issue an enterprise-wide citation that would require abating the violation at all locations. And the employer can face a maximum penalty of $124,709 per violation.
The law also authorizes the agency to issue a citation for an egregious violation if it believes that an employer has “willfully and egregiously” violated a standard or order. Each instance of employee exposure to that violation will be considered a separate violation and fined accordingly.

 

2. Permanent COVID standard

On Sept. 17, 2021, Cal/OSHA released a draft text for proposed permanent COVID-19 regulations, which if adopted would be subject to renewal or expiration after two years and would replace the current emergency temporary standard, which is set to expire Jan. 14, 2022.
Adoption is expected in the spring of 2022. Here’s some of what the draft standard would do:

CDPH rules – It would require that employers follow California Department of Public Health COVID-19 prevention orders.
Masks for unvaxxed staff – Unvaccinated staff must wear masks. Employers must provide masks when the CDPH requires them.
Outbreak rules – During an outbreak in the workplace, all staff would be required to wear face coverings regardless of vaccination status. Employers would need to provide respirators during major outbreaks to all employees.

 

3. COVID exposure notification

On Oct. 5, 2021, AB 654 took effect, updating requirements for what an employer must do if there is an outbreak of COVID-19 cases at its worksites.
This law somewhat curtailed earlier outbreak-reporting requirements as well as other required notifications for certain employers, and updated several provisions of the 2020 outbreak notification law, AB 685.
Here are some highlights:

• Employers have one business day or 48 hours, whichever is later, to report a workplace COVID-19 outbreak to Cal/OSHA and local health authorities.
• Employers do not need to issue these notices on weekends and holidays.
• When an employer has multiple worksites, it only needs to notify employees who work at the same worksite as an employee who tests positive for  coronavirus.
• The new definition of “worksites” for the purposes of the law has been changed to exclude telework.

 

4. Expansion of the California Family Rights Act

AB 1033 expands the CFRA to allow employees to take family and medical leave to care for a parent-in-law with a serious health condition.
More importantly, it adds a requirement that mediation is a prerequisite if a small employer (one with between five and 19 workers) is the subject of a civil complaint filed by one of its employees.

 

5. Workplace settlement agreements and NDCs

A new law took effect Jan. 1 that bars employers from requiring non-disclosure clauses in settlement agreements involving workplace harassment or discrimination claims of all types. This builds on prior law that barred NDCs only in cases of sex discrimination or sexual harassment.
The new law expands that prohibition to all protected classes, such as: race, religion, disability, gender, age, and more.
One important note: While employees can’t be prohibited from discussing the facts of the case, employers can still use clauses that prohibit the disclosure of the amount paid to settle a claim.

 

6. OSHA vaccine mandate

As of this writing, Fed-OSHA’s new emergency COVID-19 standard was set to take effect on Jan. 1, with the most contentious part of the rule mandating that employees who work for employers with 100 or more staff be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.
Unvaccinated workers would also be required to wear masks while on the job under the new rules, which have faced fierce challenges in courts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District recently reversed a stay of the order as challenges to it are litigated, meaning the order can take effect as scheduled as the legal process challenging the rule proceeds.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear expedited arguments Jan. 8 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decision to lift the Fifth Circuit’s stay.

 

7. Wage theft penalties

AB 1003, which took effect Jan. 1, added a new penalty to the California Penal Code: Grand Theft of Wages. The new law makes an employer’s intentional theft of wages (including tips) of more than $950 from one employee, or $2,350 for two or more workers, punishable as grand theft.
The law, which also applies to wage theft from independent contractors, allows for recovery of wages through a civil action.
As a result, employers (and potentially managers and business owners) would be exposed to both criminal and civil liability for wage and hour violations like failing to pay staff accurately and in a timely manner.
Review your compensation policies and practices to make sure you are in compliance with current wage and hour laws.

 

8. COVID cases may be included in X-Mods

The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California has proposed plans to start requiring COVID-19 claims to be included when calculating employers’ X-Mods.
The proposal, which would have to be approved by the state insurance commissioner, would bring to an end current rules that exclude the impact of COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims on X-Mods.
If approved, the new rule would take effect on Sept. 1, 2022. That means that employers will be held accountable for COVID19-related workers’ compensation claims and, if any employee needs treatment or dies from the coronavirus, it could result in higher premiums in the future.

 

9. Notices can be e-mailed

A new state law authorizes employers to distribute required posters and notices to employees via e-mail. SB 657 adds e-mail as a delivery option to the list of acceptable notification methods, which also includes mail.
Required posters and notices will still need to be physically posted in the workplace.

 

10. Warehouse quota rules

A new law that took effect Jan. 1 makes California the first (and only) state to regulate quotas used by warehouse employers.
While the bill was written with Amazon Inc. in mind, it affects all warehouses with 100 or more workers, and violations of the new law can be costly for an employer.
Under AB 701, warehouse employees must be provided with a written description of the quotas to which they are subject within 30 days of hire. Common quotas include the number of tasks the employee is required to perform, the materials to be produced or handled, and any adverse employment action that may result from a failure to meet the quota.

 

While employers may still implement quotas, employees are not required to meet a quota if it:

• Prevents them from taking required meal or rest periods,
• Prevents them from using the bathroom (including the time it takes to walk to and from the toilet), or
• Contravenes occupational health and safety laws. The law also bars employers from discriminating, retaliating or taking other adverse action against an employee who:
• Initiates a request for information about a quota or personal work-speed data, or
• Files a complaint alleging a quota violated the Labor Code.

 

A NEW LAW has come to the rescue of a number of freelance professions by exempting them from the onerous requirements of AB 5, which required most independent contractors to be classified as employees in California. Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 1 signed AB 2257 as an urgency measure so that it took effect immediately. If you remember, AB 5 set a new standard for hiring independent contractors, requiring many to be reclassified as employees covered by minimum wage, overtime, workers’ compensation, unemployment and disability insurance. It created a three-pronged test that needs to be satisfied to determine if someone is an independent contractor or an employee.

To be independent contractors under AB 5’s “ABC test,” workers must (A) work independently, (B) do work that is different from what the business does, and (C) offer their work to other businesses or the public. All three conditions must be met.

It is prong B that’s problematic. For example, a freelance writer working for a magazine would not be doing something different than the business does. The new law sets limits on the amount of income someone can receive while doing this kind of work before being considered an employee. AB 2257 also expands the “business-to-business” definition in AB 5 to cover a relationship between two or more sole proprietors.