One of the new bills recently passed (AB 749) prohibits standard “No Rehire” provisions in settlement agreements and general releases. These provisions typically read something like this:
No Future Employment. Employee agrees that she will not seek employment or any other remunerative relationship in the future with the Company, or with any
We’ve been talking a lot about employment arbitration since the passage of AB 51. We’ve discussed the bill itself, and we’ve reassessed the pros and cons of workplace arbitration since its passage. But what’s all the fuss about? It seems that every legislative session in California, we get a new bill attempting to do
With the passage of AB 51, which we discussed in yesterday’s post, it’s understandable for employers and HR professionals to be asking if mandatory workplace arbitration still makes sense. After all, according to the new bill set to take effect on January 1, 2020, requiring an employee to sign a pre-dispute arbitration agreement
On October 10, 2019, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 51 into law, prohibiting employers from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. You can read our take on the new law here. Tomorrow, we’ll discuss reassessing the pros and cons of mandatory employment arbitration. So stay tuned.
In Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., the plaintiff argued that McDonald’s, a franchisor of fast food restaurants, was liable for wage and hour violations as a “joint employer” of its franchisees’ employees. Last week, a panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument.
The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s
Today, Governor Newsom signed AB 5 into law, drastically altering how millions of Californians are paid and drastically altering the legal analysis involved in distinguishing between “employees” and “independent contractors.” Daniel Kitzes and Brian Casillas have prepared a thoughtful analysis of this new law. You can read it here.
If you have workers in
In 2018, California passed numerous pieces of legislation in response to the #MeToo movement that expanded the obligations of employers to provide sexual harassment prevention training. SB 1343 is one such piece of legislation that went into effect this year and requires that all California employers with five or more employees provide at least two
“Unconscionability” is alive and well, as last week the California high Court renewed its 30-year running dog fight with the U.S. Supreme Court over the enforceability of arbitration agreements. In One Toyota of Oakland v. Kho (“OTO”), the California Court struck down an arbitration agreement as “unconscionable,” and allowed an employee to proceed
The #MeToo movement started more than a year and a half ago. Somewhat surprisingly, the number of sexual harassment cases filed has not increased significantly. However, we’ve seen significant changes in how those cases get handled and resolved. For one thing, more claims get resolved before litigation gets filed. Employers who want to avoid
Father’s Day came early for the class of new dads who settled their gender discrimination lawsuit last week regarding JPMorgan Chase’s parental leave policy. As we discussed here, this lawsuit, and the one against Estee Lauder that settled last year, shed light on the importance of treating new parents equally in the workplace, regardless