In this December 12, 2018, ruling the Court of Appeal again reminded those involved in the sale of automobiles to consumers of the expense of litigation.

This is a case to watch because a decision in favor of the out-of-state retailers could embolden others who might seek to challenge other state law based occupational licensing requirements.

Touted as strengthening the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is backing two new bills that would impose additional requirements on California businesses while also eliminating their right to cure problems or seek guidance from the Attorney General’s office regarding compliance with the CCPA.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) has requested public comment on two petitions to exempt driverless vehicles from certain safety standards, one from General Motors, and another from lesser known Nuro, Inc. Petitions to the Department of Transportation are requests by the public to have Federal Regulations changed or exemptions from them granted. These petitions seek temporary exemptions. What is notable about these petitions is that both are requesting exemptions to be able to move farther away from the traditional notion of a motor vehicle, and closer to the futuristic notion of “mobility pods” with no driver controls.

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for a business with ten or more employees to expose a person in California to a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” or “reproductive harm” without providing a clear and reasonable warning.

As we previously reported, over the past several years, the Department of Labor (DOL) has been attempting to update its minimum salary requirements for the federal white collar overtime exemptions. Back in June 2015, the Department of Labor under the Obama administration proposed new standards that were scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2016. But in November of 2016, as a result of numerous legal challenges to the new rule, a court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking it, and in September 2017, a federal judge struck it down entirely. In July 2017, the new administration directed the DOL to institute additional fact-finding for updated salary rules, and on March 7, 2019, the DOL announced the new proposed rules.

Although the principles of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity have been ingrained in law and employment policies for decades, the continual evolution of employment discrimination law calls for employers to regularly review and update their EEO policies, including the ever-expanding list of protected characteristics.

As we reported last year, the Dynamex v. Superior Court case “radically modified the test for determining whether someone working for a business is an employee or independent contractor.” Early indications are that leading gig economy employers remain unsure how to resolve treatment of individuals who do not neatly fit the traditional definition of either employee or independent contractor.

Being an employer in California is increasingly challenging. In the last few years, new laws have emerged that present additional risks to employers, not just with respect to employees, but also with respect to job applicants.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit in Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC, held the FCRA’s “standalone document” and “clear and conspicuous” requirement means the FCRA disclosure, even if electronic, must be a separate form that cannot include any “extraneous information” (for example, including a liability release in a FCRA disclosure and an at-will employment disclaimer are prohibited). It also clarified that multi-state disclosure forms, containing disclosures from multiple states, are not compliant.

Many employers use outside payroll services to perform the important functions of processing payroll-related data and issuing employee paychecks. Recently, in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an employee can sue an outside payroll service company for errors in the employee’s pay. In that case, an employee who alleged unpaid wages, brought claims for breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against his employer’s outside payroll service provider. Although there was no employment relationship between the payroll service and the employee for unpaid wages under the Labor Code, the employee brought his claims based on the third party beneficiary doctrine, under which an individual or entity that is not a party to a contract (i.e., the third party) may bring a breach of contract action against a party to the contract if that individual or entity establishes that it is likely to benefit from the contract, that a motivating purpose of the contracting parties is to provide a benefit to the third party, and that permitting the third party to bring its own breach of contract action against a contracting party is consistent with the objectives of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.

California wage and hour laws are breeding grounds for class actions and ever more popular, Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims, that at least for now cannot be avoided with individual arbitration provisions. The bases for many of these claims are things like overtime, meal and rest breaks, all very familiar concepts to employers. In order to ensure compliance, dealers and other employers include compliant policies in their handbooks, and make sure managers are trained not to encourage employees to work through their breaks or off-the-clock. But, should you worry if an employee who comes in at 8 am, routinely doesn't take his lunch until 3 pm because he wants to use the time to pick up his child from school, or another employee always eats at her desk and only clocks 15-minute lunches?

Last year, in Epic Systems v. Lewis, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that an employee can be required, as a condition of employment, to enter into a predispute arbitration agreement waiving the right to file or participate in a class action. In the wake of the Epic decision, many have questioned whether employers can now require employees to waive their right to bring a representative action under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). This week, the California Court of Appeal answered “no.”

Do you require your employees to use their cellphone to check in and out? Do you require them to use their phones for work? If so, you might have to reimburse them.

Many people commute via car to work and use their own cars to get to various work-related events. You might be liable for any accidents they get into in their own car! 

It might be Furry, but it’s not the kind of present you are looking for… Avoid unpleasant and expensive surprises and keep track of all employee hours, even exempt ones.

Do you need a love contract? While Cupid’s arrow can strike at any time of the year, Valentine’s Day is a good time for employers to review certain workplace policies to ensure that office romance doesn’t give way to sour feelings and bitter recriminations.

Los Angeles Business Journal said it created the list to highlight "particularly stellar minority attorneys in the L.A. region who happen to be from a broad cultural spectrum." The list includes only those considered particularly impactful on the legal scene, "while serving as trusted advisors in the LA region, along with maintaining the highest professional and ethical standards, and for contributions to the Los Angeles business and legal community at large."

Starting January 1, 2019, vehicles sold at retail that do not already display permanent license plates must display a temporary license plate. In addition, dealers will no longer use a pre-printed Report of Sale form and display it in retailed vehicles. Instead, they must complete an electronic Report of Sale and display the temporary identification section of the ROS form created through that system in the sold vehicle.

On November 1, 2018, The Fourth District Court of Appeal in AMN Healthcare held that a post-termination employee non-solicitation provision for one year or longer was void under Section 16660, was an unlawful restraint on trade because it prohibited the employees from being able to practice their chosen profession.