As you may have heard, on August 1, 2023, U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services (USCIS) published an updated Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also released guidance regarding employers’ ability to use remote examination of Form I-9 documents.

On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a case that will affect the landscape of arbitration for years to come.If you missed our webinars on Adolph v. Uber, check out the replay and the slides here, where you’ll learn how to better protect your company from class action and PAGA lawsuits.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a case that will affect the landscape of arbitration for years to come. In this update, we briefly summarize the decision and what it means for you as an employer, and we invite you to our upcoming webinars on Tuesday, August 1 at 11:00 a.m. PDT and Tuesday, August 8 at 1:00 p.m. PDT to learn more about the decision and how to protect your business from wage and hour lawsuits in California.

On February 15, 2022, a five-year-old kindergarten student diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder was illegally and improperly restrained by an Oakdale Heights Elementary School special education teacher.

For the first time this year, California is requiring employers to report not only their employees’ pay data but also pay data for individuals hired through labor contractors (i.e., staffing agencies). On an annual basis, these reports will be due the second Wednesday in May for the prior year.

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered another chapter in the arbitration agreement saga playing out in California and across the U.S. in a case called Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta.

As you find your footing in the new year, we wanted to send a quick reminder that it’s a great time to circle back to those best practices we mentioned.  Taking care of compliance issues in the first part of the year means you’ll have more time to focus on running your business.

As 2022 comes to a close, there are three things every business—large and small—should consider doing as part of their 2023 New Year’s resolutions.

In the short time that the Viking River v. Moriana case has been out, a few trends are emerging in wage and hour lawsuits. The Viking River decision does not just impact California employers with active litigation, but also influences how employers should approach arbitration agreements going forward.

An important decision came down from the California Supreme Court this week. The decision clarifies how employers should report meal and rest period premium payments. Failing to properly adhere to this new reporting standard may leave your business vulnerable to liability.   

As federal and state governments continue to loosen their requirements in the workplace for COVID-19, California has followed suit and made it easier for employers to comply with COVID-19 workplace standards.

The United States Supreme Court will soon hear a pivotal case impacting employers with non-exempt hourly employees. The case, Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, is set for oral argument on March 30, 2022, with a decision expected this summer.

California has reinstituted its paid COVID-19 supplemental sick leave, which requires employers with more than 25 employees to provide supplemental paid sick leave (SPSL) to employees out with COVID-19 or related issues, retroactive to January 1, 2022.

On December 16, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board readopted the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) with revisions. The emergency standards take effect on January 14, 2022, applying to most workers in California not covered by the Aerosol Transmissible Diseases standard. Below, please see the important requirements that have not changed and the revisions. There are definitions included for reference.

The stay on the Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) was dissolved on Friday and the ETS is now reinstated. OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.

To refresh your recollection, below is the original legislative update about the new ETS.

OSHA has issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring all employers with at least 100 employees to ensure that their workers are vaccinated or submitting to weekly COVID testing. The ETS is effective November 5, 2021, and employees have until January 4, 2021, to be fully vaccinated or begin testing weekly. 

The enforceability of arbitration agreements is one of the most litigated and appealed issues in employment law.  And now the appellate courts are at it again. On September 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, issued an important ruling on the enforceability of arbitration agreements. You might have heard about a law passed last year called AB 51, which prohibited California employers from forcing employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. The bill even went so far as to make it a misdemeanor for employers to use mandatory arbitration agreements.

This guidance recommends stronger workplace COVID protocols, including increased masking for all employees regardless of vaccination status and encourages vaccination for all employees. It also recommends physical distancing and other COVID prevention and reporting methods most businesses already have in place. At this time, the OSHA recommendations are guidance only and are not mandatory.

In the latest COVID news, the CDC has reversed its position on mask mandates indoors for vaccinated individuals and is now recommending that everyone wear masks indoors, regardless of vaccination status.

Last week, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel addressing what rate needs to be paid for meal and rest period premium payments.