The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) provides consumers with a variety of rights regarding the collection, selling, and sharing of their personal information. Some of the latest amendments to the CCPA expand mandatory disclosures when businesses share consumer information with other businesses (which can include vendors and contractors). However, it is important to know how to classify third-party businesses for purposes of maintaining compliance with the CCPA.
Human Resource and Compliance departments are scrambling to prepare for changes in California’s consumer protection laws. The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) goes into full effect on January 1, 2023 which makes a variety of changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) that was passed in 2018. Amongst many of the changes, CPRA provides consumers the right to know, modify and delete their information that a business collects. Many of these changes are applicable to information that human resource departments maintain.
Per CAL OSHA, employers must exclude from the workplace employees or employee groups who have been exposed to COVID-19. Employers must pay these excluded employees their regular pay and benefits. Under the new revised CAL OSHA revised Emergency Temporary Standard, discussed below, this pay is not to come from Covid-19 sick pay supplemented by the State of California, regular sick pay, vacation time or anything other than regular pay roll.
Office relationships and romances can be problematic, but they are bound to happen, even post-pandemic when businesses are operating in a digital space. For any employer, there should be safeguards and protocols to ensure employees are working in a healthy environment.
Although the California Covid-19 Paid Sick Leave bill ended in September 2021, a new bill has been put in place to continue paid sick leave for those affected by Covid-19. This new bill is effective February 19th, 2022 and is retroactive to January 1st 2022. The key similarities and differences between the 2021 bill and the new bill are listed below.
For many employers, a key tool for in avoiding litigation costs is to require employees to go to arbitration rather than file disputes in Court. The California Private Attorneys General Act or “PAGA” remains a persistent threat to employers because current California law prevents arbitration of these claims. With a quick glance at the database on the California Department of Industrial Relationships, it is easy to see the consistent increase in these types of cases and the risk they pose to employers. But there may be a change on the horizon…
Building on its mission to promote a truly diverse legal system and in recognition of Black History Month, law boutique Scali Rasmussen announced its continued financial support for scholarship programs benefiting law students of color, including transgender and nonbinary students.
2021 case review: Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Assn. v. Superior Ct.
Published on Mon, 02/07/2022 - 8:16am
A plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion based in part on the Declaration (under penalty for perjury ) of a relevant witness. The defendant then obtained the deposition of that witness, and found that the individual executing the Declaration said that they had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged, and had signed the document because they were pressured by Plaintiff’s counsel.
2021 case review: Will Kaupelis v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
Published on Sun, 02/06/2022 - 11:25pm
The California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) went into effect on January 1, 2020, requiring the provision of certain notices, including that businesses inform consumers of their: (1) right to know, (2) right to delete, (3) right to opt out, (4) and right not to be discriminated against for exercising any rights the CCPA provides. In the class action case plaintiff Kaupelis sought discovery that included the personally identifiable information of persons that complained about defects in the chainsaw that was the subject of the action. The defendant resisted production of this information in reliance on the CCPA arguing that the CCPA expanded the privacy rights previously provided under California law and that the court should “protect the consumers’ PI by allowing consumers an opportunity to opt out from disclosure.” The Court noted that historically Courts engaged in a balancing test, balancing the need for the discovery against the privacy interests involved, and that the CCPA did not set aside that body of law. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, stating that “[n]othing in the CCPA presents a bar to civil discovery. Notably, no other case has so held. And the statute itself explicitly says that it is not a restriction on a business’s ability to comply with federal law,” which would include the Federal Code of Civil Procedure provisions concerning discovery.