The California legislature and courts have been skeptical of mandatory arbitration in employment and consumer cases and have for years looked for ways to declare agreements to arbitrate unenforceable. But these efforts have created a complicated dance involving the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the federal courts, as the FAA prohibits states from passing laws that interfere with the ability of two parties to consent to mandatory arbitration. In most cases, the federal courts have found that the FAA invalidates California laws and court rulings limiting the use of mandatory arbitration agreements.

Southern California Record taps Scali Rasmussen attorney Colleen O’Brien on the outcome and the impact of opioid litigation in Orange County Superior Court. Read the article.

On September 21, 2021, U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner Christine Wilson provided keynote remarks at the Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy’s Robert R. Wilson Distinguished Lecture Series regarding some of the major issues lawmakers must confront to pass federal privacy legislation. Commissioner Wilson, a Trump-appointee, argued that comprehensive federal privacy legislation is the right approach because there is an information asymmetry between consumers and businesses that results in a market failure and because federal legislation will create a more consistent legal landscape for businesses.

As more employees return to the office, this is a good time to review dress code policies to be sure that they reflect the most recent developments in federal and California law. One significant change is California’s Crown Act, effective since January 1, 2020. The Crown Act expanded the definition of race under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) such that hairstyle traits associated with race – braids, afros, and twists, among others – are now protected against discrimination. This article reviews current law and makes recommendations for employers so that their dress code policies do not adversely affect a protected class.

This month, the Biden Administration announced that it has directed the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue Emergency Temporary Standards requiring that employers with 100 or more employees mandate that employees be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 or test on a weekly basis for COVID. OSHA has not yet released these Temporary Standards, but the news has already raised important questions for employers, including how to handle employee medical information. This article reviews the state of the law with respect to employee health information and makes recommendations regarding what every employer should do now to prepare for the new Temporary Standards.

California passed a law in March of 2021 that allowed employees to take up to an additional 80 hours of supplemental COVID paid sick leave, if they met certain requirements. This law expires on September 30, 2021, and the Legislature did not pass any new legislation extending by the deadline for the Regular Session. This means that except in specific circumstances discussed below, employers will not be required to provide their employees with supplemental COVID paid sick leave starting October 1, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, the last day of the 2021 legislative session, the California State Assembly unanimously passed Senate Bill 41, titled the Genetic Information Privacy Act. The bill will go before Governor Gavin Newsom and must receive his approval over the next 30 days to become law.

On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that he was directing the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to adopt Emergency Temporary Standards requiring many employers to mandate that their employees are vaccinated for COVID or tested weekly for COVID. The mandate will apply to employers with 100 or more employees and is expected to apply to nearly 80 million workers.

Scali Rasmussen announced today that attorneys Colleen O'Brien and Monica Baumann have been selected as a nominees by L.A. Times B2B Publishing for its inaugural 'Inspirational Women Awards.'

Scali Rasmussen Founder and Managing Shareholder Christian Scali has been recognized as a 'Visionary' in Business of Law: Trends, Updates & Visionaries, a special feature published this week by L.A. Times B2B Publishing. Attorneys were recognized as visionaries "for their contributions and leadership within their organizations, the legal field, and the community at large," the feature says.

Passwords are ubiquitous. We use them to access everything from our bank accounts and sensitive business documents, to our social media and online memberships. The most secure passwords are a series of random numbers, letters, and characters. Using these types of passwords can present practical challenges, though, because they are easily forgotten and difficult to enter correctly. Further, because passwords are such a common part of our lives, we can too easily fall into bad habits that put business or personal information at risk.

If you’ve ever felt uneasy about providing so much personal information to your phone apps, a $58 million settlement by Plaid Inc. this month makes clear those concerns are well founded.

California law provides parties with the opportunity to make a settlement offer without fear of incurring additional fees and costs if the case goes to trial and a less favorable judgment is awarded. That opportunity is found in Code of Civil Procedure section 998. While 998 offers are common in litigation, different issues periodically arise that require judicial review. Two recent appellate decisions provide insight into how to ensure the court will uphold your 998 offer, while also reminding us that 998 offers have very specific requirements to be valid.

The last ten years have seen a steep upward trend in the number of lemon lawsuits filed in California. In Los Angeles County alone, the number of lemon lawsuits doubled between 2015 and 2019 and are currently estimated to compromise 10% of the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s civil litigation docket. These numbers are particularly troubling when you consider that over the same period, the reliability of new cars increased substantially. According to Consumer Reports, between 2013 and 2018 new cars saw a 2% decrease in both major and minor engine problems and similar decreases for problems with transmissions, fuel systems, climate systems, suspension and brakes. One notable exception to this downward trend in reported problems with new car systems is in-car electronics, for which problem issues have remained largely flat. When taking into consideration the rapid deployment of new technology for in-car electronics over the same time period, even the outlier flat trend line for problems with in-car electronics issues is demonstrative of an across the board increase in car manufacturing standards and reliability.

In today’s unique market, many dealers are considering their buy-sell options. Getting a sense of the value of the business is the typical starting point. Brokers and investment bankers who focus on dealership transactions are quick to point to rules of thumb, especially the earnings multiplied by a multiple, where the multiple is based entirely on the franchise represented by the dealer. But this approach alone does not account for the wide variety of variables that are involved, nor does it deal with dealership real estate. While the earnings-times-multiple approach provides a quick gauge of value, both sides of this mathematical equation deserve some further attention.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is in a state of flux, with a new Attorney General enforcing its provisions and a new agency created by proposition, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) setting up to take over and implement substantive changes also passed by proposition. With these circumstances, observers may see 2020, the first year of CCPA enforcement as relatively unimportant. However, the new California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, held a press conference in July to tout the effectiveness of the law and unveil a reporting tool for consumers. This article looks at some of his more important comments and predicts what this could mean for the future of consumer privacy in California.

In an unsurprising decision that is yet another blow to employers, the California Supreme Court clarified in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel LLC that one-hour premiums for missed or noncompliant meal and rest breaks must be paid at the same regular rate used to calculate overtime. In so deciding, it overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision that had previously held that such premiums could be paid at the employee’s base hourly wage, even if the employee also received additional compensation in the form of bonuses, commissions, or piece rate earnings.

“Specific Performance” is a powerful legal remedy afforded to parties to certain contracts where there has been a failure of performance on one side. In California, the remedy is established by statute in the California Civil Code at Sections 3384 to 3395. Most commonly, a court action for specific performance is used to compel performance of either the buyer or the seller of real property, enforcing the specific terms of the real estate purchase agreement. This remedy is often pursued regardless of whether other monetary remedies may be available to the party not in breach.

Acrylamide is a chemical that results, inter alia, when foods are browned in cooking, such as when foods are baked, fried, or roasted. The State of California has determined that consuming acrylamide increases the risk of cancer. That finding has resulted in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requiring warnings, pursuant to Proposition 65, of that hazard (although the amounts that trigger the warnings are somewhat in flux).

The Biden administration is eager to see a bill passed that deters the payout of ransoms to cybercriminals, and while the ultimate goal is to disincentivize these attacks, it could have serious implications for companies likely to be targeted.