Last week, the Court of Appeal ordered the publication of its employer-friendly opinion affirming the denial of class certification in an employment wage and hour case. In Cacho v. Eurostar, the two plaintiffs took the position that their former employer maintained meal and rest break policies that violated California law because they did not address an employee’s entitlement to 1) take a first meal break within the first five hours of work, 2) take a second meal break on shifts over 10 hours, or 3) take a third rest break on shifts over 10 hours. They also argued that, since an earlier version of the employee handbook erroneously stated that employees were entitled to a rest break on shifts of at least four hours – instead of on shifts of at least 3.5 hours – class certification of their rest break claim was appropriate. The Court upheld the lower court’s findings that: 1) the employer’s written meal break policies did not evidence a uniform unlawful policy that would be appropriate to decide on a classwide basis, and 2) the employer did not have a uniform practice of denying required rest breaks.

Employers with over 100 employees who do not offer an employee retirement plan should prepare themselves in the upcoming months to institute the state’s CalSavers program, which will take effect on July 1, 2020.

Employers who utilize employment arbitration agreements have been preparing to issue new arbitration agreement forms effective January 1, 2020 in light of the new law (AB 51), which prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to sign agreements mandating arbitration of claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) or the Labor Code. But employers may hold off on issuing these new AB 51-compliant agreements for now.

“It was a pleasure to have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with LAFLA to achieve this successful outcome,” said Christian Scali, founder and managing partner of Scali Rasmussen. “Representing the tenants pro bono is one way our attorneys are able to make a difference in our community.”

Many automotive vendors rely on accessing automotive dealers’ customer data to provide services as varied as lead generation, vehicle tracking, and customer service. Under the CCPA, dealers may be held liable if any vendor misuses customer data or experiences a data breach. Each vendor that uses your customer data therefore has the potential to steeply increase your potential liability, particularly in light of the fact that you cannot directly control the vendor’s data use or data security practices.

Although a year-end Company “holiday” party is a nice opportunity for employers to show their appreciation to employees for their work over the course of the year, these events are a perennial HR headache as the legal risks abound if employers are not careful. Here are some tips for planning such events that apply any time of the year.

This year, Governor Newsom signed several bills into law that affect California employers, many of which take effect on January 1, 2020. Though most of these laws do not explicitly instruct employers to update their handbooks, some may invalidate provisions that are contained in existing employee handbooks, written policies or other documents provided to employees, such as pay plans. Here are a few things to keep in mind...

Automotive News turned to Scali Rasmussen attorney Monica Baumann for this article about the California Consumer Privacy Act. The most aggressive consumer-privacy law in the country, the CCPA goes into effect January 1, 2020.

The California Department of Industrial Relations announced the new minimum salary threshold for exempt computer professionals. Effective January 1, 2020, a computer professional must receive a salary of no less than $96,968.33 per year ($8,081.71 monthly) in order to qualify for the white collar exemption. This increase reflects the 2.5% increase in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers over the minimum threshold from 2019.

Last month, the Court of Appeal issued a rare employer-friendly ruling regarding the calculation of meal and rest period premiums and regarding time rounding policies. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, plaintiff – a former bartender for the defendant – alleged that her employer improperly paid employees’ meal and rest period premiums at the base rate of compensation (i.e., the hourly wage), without including an additional amount based on incentive compensation such as nondiscretionary bonuses. Plaintiff reasoned that, because these additional amounts are included for the purpose of calculating overtime premiums, they should also be included for the purpose of calculating meal and rest period premiums, since the language in the statutes governing each of these payments is essentially identical.

The article Suit Targets Fingerprint Scans as Employee Time Trackers is highlighted in the Industry Voices section of WardsAuto. It discusses why businesses should be alert to employee-privacy issues, especially those involving biometric data, in light of the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).

Scali Rasmussen partner Jeffrey Erdman was profiled in this month's Elite Boutique edition of National Law Journal's Trailblazers magazine. They praised his dedication "to working within the profession to create a more diverse bar and judiciary, open more minds and educate people." Erdman is a co-chair of Scali Rasmussen's Diversity Initiative.

The California Consumer Privacy Act has four major prongs intended to protect consumer’s privacy while also allowing consumers to use services provided by companies that share and sell data. In general terms, businesses will need to tell customers what type of data they collect, what they disclose or sell, and what purpose they use the data for. Businesses may also be required to erase data and, in more limited circumstances, allow customers to “opt out” of certain usages.

The California Consumer Privacy Act governs three different types of data usages: collection of data, disclosure of data, and sale of data. It is important for businesses, including auto dealers, to know not only what type of data they are collecting, but what use they intend to put it to, as their duties under the law depend on the data usage.

The California Consumer Privacy Act applies to “personal information” of a consumer, broadly defined as “information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” Data covered includes, but is not limited to, traditional identifiers like name, postal address, email address, driver’s license numbers, and social security numbers. It also personal characteristics such as age, race, or national origin; commercial information such as records of purchases of goods or services; biometric data; Internet or other electronic network activity; geolocation data; professional or employment-related data; and education information. However, “publicly available information,” defined as information lawfully made available from federal, state or local government records.

Big tech companies are the clear target of the California Consumer Privacy Act, but its reach is much wider than just Silicon Valley. The threshold question, therefore, for each business looking at CCPA compliance, including auto dealerships, is whether the law applies to them. Not all businesses are covered by the CCPA; understanding whether your is will be key.

On October 10, 2019, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released proposed regulations to implement the California Consumer Privacy Act. These regulations focus on one aspect of the CCPA, the consumer’s new rights under the law, and give businesses guidance on how to effectuate these rights and comply with the law. This now triggers the process of public comment and finalization of the rule, which will extend into 2020.

Scali Rasmussen Managing Partner Christian Scali has been recognized for his accomplishments as a leading attorney within the Los Angeles business community and selected as a nominee for the Los Angeles Business Journal’s Leaders in Law Awards.

In June of 2018, on the last day to qualify ballot measures for the 2018 ballot, California adopted AB 375, the strongest privacy law in the nation. The new law is modeled somewhat on the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which famously purports to give customers the “right to be forgotten,” and gives consumers several new rights, aiming to bring more control and transparency to the murky trade and use of people's personal data. It also, for the first time, provides consumers with the ability to sue companies that mishandle their data without ever having to prove harm due to the misuse.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision stresses the importance of evidentiary rulings in jury trials, and it demonstrates what types of evidence may be found admissible (or inadmissible) in sexual harassment cases. In Meeks v. Autozone Inc. et al., a female employee sued her employer and one of its managers for claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The employee, a manager, alleged that she had been harassed by another manager over an extended period of time and that, when she complained, she was threatened with termination if she did not “squash” her complaint. The trial court dismissed the employee’s retaliation claim, finding that no reasonable juror could find in the employee’s favor, and the jury returned verdicts for the employer on the remaining causes of action.