Under the Trump Administration, change is likely to come to the CFPB and FTC, but its extent and how it impacts auto dealers is unknown. Trump has started shaking things up with controversial Executive Orders and the backlash is already mounting. In more liberal states, like California, Governors and Attorneys General have already vowed to push back and may very well step up their own enforcement where the federal government falls short. This makes for an uncertain future for regulatory enforcement that cannot be easily predicted.

“Whether he’s handling a mediation or a substantive court appearance involving a class action, Jurdi has shown he can go in alone and walk out victorious,” said Christian Scali. “He’s going to add substantial firepower to our consumer protection cases.”

As tempting as it may be for an employer to just throw all documentation pertaining to an employee into one personnel file, numerous legal reasons exist why certain records need to be separated from others, such as privacy, discrimination, and HIPPAA obligations.

Although employers are generally aware that they must provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees, which could include modified work duties, leaves of absence, or reduced schedules, there is an additional obligation that is often overlooked: the obligation to engage in the interactive process. In fact, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the failure to engage in the interactive process creates an entirely separate legal claim.

Unpaid internships are often a mutually beneficial arrangement in which the intern gains valuable experience and training and the business can vet potential future employees. However, employees must be careful that their unpaid interns are not deemed to be employees.

California law specifies what must be included on employee wage statements or paystubs, which includes an employee’s “total hours worked.” But how does an employer comply when an employee is in an exempt position that is not required to record hours worked? Now the legislature has provided some clarification on this.

This article addresses a buyer’s conditions to closing in a dealership asset purchase agreement. Buyers should carefully review and negotiate these provisions, which can materially affect whether they should or will commit to a purchase. If one or more buyer conditions are not satisfied or waived before the closing, the buyer typically has the right to walk away from the deal, without having any remaining liability (unless a separate provision of the agreement creates such liability).

The term “leave of absence” is usually associated with a long period of time during which an employee is continuously absent. So employers may not realize that “intermittent leave,” (i.e., short periods of time-off or a reduced schedule) that an employee requests for a serious health condition may qualify for leave protection under the Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act.

When an employee takes time off of work for a disability related to pregnancy or childbirth, multiple protected leaves of absence are in effect. But employers should be aware that pregnancy disability leaves offer more protections to employees in some important ways.

It is not uncommon an employer operating in multiple states to require its employees who live or work within California to litigate any employment-related disputes outside of California under the law of a different state. Now, that’s no bueno. Employers cannot require employees who live and work in California to agree, as a condition of employment, to litigate or arbitrate outside of California claims that arise in California, or to apply non-California law to a controversy arising in California.

Under the California Labor Code, if you employ 25 or more employees, you must provide time off and other accommodations to employees who are victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and stalking. Learn more about the new notice requirements and your obligations under this law.

Last week, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal in Augustus v. ABM Sec. Srvs., Inc., holding that “on duty” and “on call” rest periods are against California law under Labor Code section 226.7 and ICW Wage Order 4. While this Wage Order is not applicable to dealership employees, they fall under Wage Order 7, which contains the same rest break provision. Therefore, this case highlights how the Supreme Court may rule on rest breaks for dealership employees. The rule is: (1) For a rest break to be proper employees must be relieved of all duties and the employer must relinquish any control over the employee (but, requiring them to remain onsite does not establish control), and (2) requiring employees to be on call (even if you are not usually called) does not relieve them of all duties.

The City of Los Angeles recently passed the Fair Chance Initiative, a new ordinance banning the use of any questions regarding an applicant’s criminal history in the pre-offer stage of the hiring process. Effective January 22, 2017, employers cannot ask about a job applicant’s criminal history until a conditional offer of employment (conditioned only on an assessment of the employee’s criminal history and the job duties) has been made. This rule applies to any employer located or doing business in the City of Los Angeles who employs ten or more employees. The ordinance also provides a private right of action, and imposes penalties of up to $2,000 for repeat violations.

On December 15th, the California Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated decision in the Raceway Ford Cases, holding that the practice of backdating second or subsequent contracts did not violate the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 2981, et seq. known as “ASFA”) and that the disclosure of inaccurate smog fees did not entitle buyers to the remedy of rescission under ASFA where the error was an accidental or bona fide error in computation. In so doing, the Supreme Court specifically overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in the 2010 case of Nelson v. Pearson Ford, which held that the backdating of contracts violated ASFA because it resulted in an illegal finance charge, and also violated ASFA’s “single document rule.” Importantly, the Court also affirmed the large award of attorney’s fees to Raceway Ford on the backdating claims.

A couple of laws did not make it on the New Laws Alert last week, but we think they are important for our dealer clients to know.

In August of this year, the California Court of Appeal in Nichols v. Century West, LLC. et al. held that a dealer’s informal agreement with a customer to delay depositing her down payment checks did not constitute an undisclosed deferred down payment on the sales contract, nor did it violate the single document rule. The challenges to this decision were resolved earlier this month and the remittitur issued last Monday. So, this is the law of the land. Nonetheless, Nichols leaves some unanswered questions and we strongly recommend consulting with an automotive attorney before changing your polices concerning deferred down payments.