California Employment Law Update

We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

As we reported here, Cal/OSHA’s revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) took effect on January 14, 2022. The controversial emergency regulations, which have caused employers countless headaches, survived their first major challenge when the Court of Appeal, in Western Growers Association v. Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board affirmed the trial court’s order blocking a preliminary injunction.
A

Last month, California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (“OSHSB”) readopted and revised the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”).  By and large, OSHSB’s revised ETS retain most of the key requirements of the prior version, which had last been updated last June (as we reported here).  However, the revised ETS, which will take effect on

Things aren’t looking so good for the long-term health of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

On top of the U.S. Supreme Court’s granting review of a case challenging PAGA’s anti-arbitration rule (as we reported here) and a separate challenge brought by an association of California business owners currently pending before the California Court of Appeal,

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, which has responsibility for the County’s more than 10 million residents, kicked off the new year with a brand new Health Officer Order on January 5, 2022. Among other changes, the new Health Officer Order imposes significant requirements on employers with respect to face coverings (effective January 17, 2022).
While Los Angeles

Christmas came early this year for California employers.  Bucking the trend of unrelentingly bad news for employers in the state, the California Court of Appeal has held that the default (lower) penalties found in the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and not the heightened penalties set forth in Labor Code section 226.3 (“Section 226.3”) apply to a run-of-the-mill

The California Court of Appeal has definitively resolved an issue that was until now somewhat ambiguous:  Can volunteers in fact volunteer their time for nonprofit organizations without receiving pay or other forms of compensation?  The answer is YES.  Woods v. American Film Institute, Case No. B307220 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2021).
Laurie Woods worked for four days

In the latest blow against Netflix’s aggressive recruiting practices, a California appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s injunction against Netflix and in favor of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”), thus permanently barring the streaming giant from poaching Fox executives by inducing them to breach their fixed-term employment contracts.
Netflix challenged the injunction, which was issued two years ago

While the California Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld arbitration agreements with class action waivers (as they must under the Federal Arbitration Act), in a now infamous (and controversial) decision from 2014, the court held that an arbitration agreement could not include an enforceable waiver of an employee’s right to bring a “representative” action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys

As we recently reported, California juries continue to award massive verdicts to employees with alarming regularity.  And, just in time for the holidays, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury upped the ante on Thursday, handing a fired insurance company executive a verdict totaling $155.4 million – including $150 million in punitive damages.
Plaintiff Andrew Rudnicki worked for Farmers Insurance Exchange