Reverse chronological e-mail alerts prepared pro bono for the California Lawyers Association (formerly State Bar of California) Labor & Employment Law Section since 2007, covering California, 9th Circuit and US Supreme Court decisions, and new laws signed by Governor. To subscribe, contact LaborLaw@CLA.Legal.

​

See prior archived alerts by clicking on "Blog" under menu. For alerts older than one year, please request under "Contact" tab.

​

Trujillo v. City of L.A. (CA2/2 B314042 10/27/22) 998 Offer Expiration [civil procedure case applicable to employment litigation]

 

A defendant sued for negligence moves for summary judgment and makes a settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (a 998 offer) days before the hearing on its summary judgment motion.  Mere minutes after the trial court orally grants summary judgment, the plaintiff zips off an email to the defendant purporting to accept the 998 offer.  This scenario presents the following question:  Does a 998 offer automatically expire when a trial court orally grants the offeror’s summary judgment motion?  We hold that that answer is “yes.”  Because the trial court came to the same conclusion, we affirm.

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B314042.PDF

​

Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal.App.5th 427 (2022) review granted 2022 WL 15050274 (Oct. 26, 2022); S275848/A163503 Wage & Hour 

 

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of the judgment. (1) Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, subdivision (b)? (2) May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5, subdivision (b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2? Review granted/brief due.

 

Docket

Court of Appeal Decision

​

Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC (9th Cir. 21-56130 10/25/22) ADA | Attorney’s Fees

 

The panel affirmed the district court’s order awarding a reduced amount of attorney’s fees and costs following the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

The plaintiff, a serial ADA litigant, moved for an award of over $34,000 in attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The district court reduced this award significantly, finding that factors such as the routine nature of the work performed by the plaintiff’s attorneys and the lack of meaningful opposition by the defendants warranted the use of a $300/hour “blended billing rate” for all the work performed by counsel, as well as a 65% downward multiplier to the total amount of fees.

 

The panel held that the district court provided an adequate “concise but clear explanation” of the grounds for its decision and did not abuse its broad discretion because, given the repetitive nature of high-frequency ADA litigation, there was nothing irrational about the district court’s conclusions that, in effect, much of the work here could have been performed by junior associates or even paralegals, or that much of the motion practice in the case was superfluous.

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/24/21-56130.pdf

​

Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (CA6 H049033 10/24/22) Unpaid Wages | Rounding

 

Plaintiffs Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa filed a putative class action for unpaid wages against defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. (Home Depot).  Plaintiffs alleged that Home Depot’s electronic timekeeping system captured each minute worked by employees, but that due to Home Depot’s quarter-hour rounding policy, employees were paid for less time than reflected in Home Depot’s timekeeping system.

 

Home Depot moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ complaint.  Home Depot argued that plaintiff Correa did not have standing to bring a claim for unpaid wages because she did not lose any wages as a result of the rounding policy.  Although it acknowledged that plaintiff Camp had lost a total of 470 minutes over approximately four and a half years due to the rounding policy, Home Depot contended it was still entitled to summary judgment because its rounding policy was neutral on its face, neutral as applied, and otherwise lawful under See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (See’s Candy).  The trial court granted the motion, finding that Home Depot’s rounding policy met the standard articulated in See’s Candy.  Specifically, the trial court found that Home Depot’s rounding policy “is neutral on its face and is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.”  The trial court also observed that under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (Auto Equity), the trial court was “not free to disregard binding appellate authority and reach a different conclusion.”

 

On appeal, plaintiff Correa concedes that she was overpaid and cannot state a claim for unpaid wages.  We will dismiss her appeal as abandoned.

 

On appeal, plaintiff Camp contends, among other arguments, that notwithstanding See’s Candy, neither the Labor Code nor the relevant wage order authorizes time rounding that results in an individual employee failing to receive compensation for all time worked.  Camp expressly states that he “do[es] not contend that all rounding is unlawful,” and he acknowledges that “there are rounding systems that do not run afoul” of California’s wage and hour laws.

           

Based on the particular facts of this case, and in view of the guidance and direction provided by more recent California Supreme Court opinions in Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829 (Troester) and Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 (Donohue), we conclude that Home Depot, in relying on its quarter-hour rounding policy, did not meet its burden to show that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding plaintiff Camp’s claims for unpaid wages, where Home Depot could and did track the exact time in minutes that an employee worked each shift and those records showed that Camp was not paid for all the time he worked.  We will therefore reverse the judgment against plaintiff Camp and direct the trial court to enter a new order denying Home Depot’s summary judgment motion as to Camp.

           

We limit our analysis to the specific facts before us.  We do not reach the issue of whether employer time rounding practices in other contexts comply with California law.  For example, we do not address the application of See’s Candy and its progeny to other circumstances, such as when an employer uses a neutral rounding policy due to the inability to capture the actual minutes worked by an employee.  We also do not reach the issue of whether an employer who has the actual ability to capture an employee’s minutes worked is required to do so.  We observe that the California Supreme Court has indicated that in circumstances involving “ ‘the practical administrative difficulty of recording small amounts of time for payroll purposes,’ ” and where “neither a restructuring of work nor a technological fix is practical, it may be possible to reasonably estimate worktime—for example, through surveys, time studies, or, as See’s Candy suggested, a fair rounding policy—and to compensate employees for that time.”  (Troester, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 848.)  We observe that the California Supreme Court has since stated, however, that it “has never decided the validity of the rounding standard articulated in See’s Candy.”  (Donohue, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 72.)

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H049033.PDF

 

Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC (9th Cir. 21-16522 10/24/22) Fair Labor Standards Act | Overtime

 

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant  Customer Connexx LLC and remanded for further proceedings in a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by call center workers.

 

The workers provided customer service and scheduling to customers over a “soft phone,” operated only through their employer-provided computers. They alleged that their time booting up and shutting down their computers was an integral and indispensable part of their principal duties, making the time compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act.

 

The panel concluded that the district court correctly identified the workers’ principal duties as answering customer phone calls and scheduling appliance pickups. Agreeing with the Tenth Circuit, the panel held that the workers’ duties could not be performed without turning on and booting up their work computers, and having a functioning computer was necessary before the workers could receive calls and schedule appointments. Accordingly, turning on the computers was integral and indispensable to the workers’ duties and was a principal activity under

the FLSA. It therefore was compensable.

 

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment on the FLSA claim and remanded to the district court for consideration of whether time spent shutting down computers was compensable, whether the time spent booting up and down the computers was not compensable under the de minimis doctrine, and whether Connexx had no knowledge of the alleged overtime such that it was not in violation of the FLSA’s overtime requirements.

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/24/21-16522.pdf

​

Kilgore v. Spectro Professional Services, LLC (9th Cir. 21-15897 10/20/22) Whistleblower Retaliation | Wrongful Termination

 

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiff’s former employer, SpecPro Professional Services, LLC, on plaintiff’s retaliation and wrongful termination claims.

 

While he was consulting on an environmental project for the U.S. Army Reserve Command, plaintiff believed he was required to prepare an environmental assessment in a manner that violated federal law. Plaintiff was terminated after reporting the suspected illegality to the client and his supervisor, William Emerson, at SpecPro. Plaintiff brought statutory and common law claims of retaliation and wrongful termination in a California state court action that was removed to federal court.

 

Plaintiff alleged his employment was terminated in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b), (c). The panel first addressed the district court’s determination that plaintiff’s disclosures to his supervisor were not actionable because the supervisor was not “a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance.”

 

The district court determined that plaintiff’s disclosures to the supervisor were immaterial and insufficient as a matter of law to establish a whistleblower violation under section 1102.5(b). Although the Supreme Court of California has not addressed the issue, the panel concluded that the district court misconstrued the provision. The panel held that plaintiff’s disclosures to his supervisor—as a “person with authority over the employee”—provided an independent ground for asserting a whistleblower retaliation claim under section 1102.5(b). Such a construction was consistent with the broad remedial purpose of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. The panel predicted that the California Supreme Court would hold that section 1102.5(b) prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who disclose wrongdoing to any one of several enumerated avenues. Because the district court wrongly concluded that disclosures to the supervisor were not protected under the whistleblower statute, it did not consider this evidence in ruling on SpecPro’s motion for summary judgment. The panel concluded that the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether SpecPro retaliated against plaintiff for engaging in protected whistleblower activity. The district court also disregarded plaintiff’s disclosures to Army Reserve project leader Chief Laura Caballero because: (1) disclosing potential violations to Caballero was not a protected activity because it was a part of the “normal duties” of his employment; and (2) plaintiff’s disclosures were unprotected because Caballero was assertedly a “wrongdoer” in the alleged noncompliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and, therefore, Caballero’s own wrongdoing was not a “disclosure” to her. The panel held that both determinations rested on a misapplication of California law.

 

First, the panel held that the district court presumed, without explaining why, that Caballero was plaintiff’s supervisor with authority over him. The record does not support that supposition. Plaintiff’s disclosures to her were properly understood as a disclosure to a “government agency” under the plain language of the statute. Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b). Section 1102.5(b), as amended in 2014, provides that a whistleblower’s disclosures are protected regardless of whether the disclosure was part of the employee’s normal duties. The panel held that plaintiff’s discussions with Caballero of potential violations of NEPA were clearly protected under state whistleblower law at the time they were made. Second, the panel held that several state court appellate courts have held that disclosures to wrongdoers are protected under section 1102.5(b). The district court court’s reliance on Mize-Kurman v. Marin Community College District, 136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 259 (Ct. App. 2012), was inapt. The panel held that the district court misapplied California law when it rejected evidence of plaintiff’s disclosures to Caballero. The panel further held that plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether he disclosed potential violations of law to Caballero and whether such disclosures were a contributing factor in his termination in violation of state law.

 

Next, concerning the section 1102.5(b) claim, the panel addressed whether plaintiff reasonably believed that the information disclosed a violation of a federal statute or noncompliance with a federal rule or regulation. In other words, did plaintiff reasonably believe that NEPA was being violated in the preparation on an environmental assessment for a proposed action by the 1-158th Assault Helicopter Battalion to modify the use of landing sites on land owned by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice near Conroe, Texas (“Conroe EA”). The district court held that plaintiff could not have reasonably believed that omission of the prior helicopter operations from the Conroe EA was a violation of NEPA and its regulations because the EA was a “forward looking” document that need only assess the potential impacts of the proposed action. The panel held that the district court misconstrued the holding in Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004). The panel held that the district court’s assertion that the EA was only a “forward looking” document that need not consider prior activity was contradicted by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and precedent. As plaintiff’s testimony and evidence identified, the Conroe EA provided no analysis or discussion of the prior helicopter activities. The cumulative effect of these prior activities, when combined with the proposed assault helicopter landing zone operations, could have significant effect on the environment. The panel concluded that the district court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had no reasonable cause to believe that they were evaluating NEPA by failing to consider and include the prior helicopter operations in the Conroe EA.

 

The panel addressed two remaining matters on the section 1102.5(b) claim. First, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff’s claims, the panel held that plaintiff’s concern about the inability to meet the three-month deadline reflected a broader concern that the team was being forced to prepare a noncompliant report that unlawfully excluded the prior helicopter operations; and the reasonableness of his belief was a factual question for the jury to determine. Second, the panel rejected SpecPro’s assertion that plaintiff could not have reasonably believed there was a violation of NEPA because such violation can only occur when the EA was signed, and plaintiff was fired before the Conroe EA was completed. This argument was contradicted by the plain language of the statute.

 

The panel concluded that plaintiff’s disclosures to his supervisor and Caballero were protected under section 1102.5(b), and he raised genuine issues of material fact as to what illegal conduct he disclosed, whether he had reasonable cause to believe that federal law was being violated, and whether his whistleblowing activity was a contributing factor in his termination of employment. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment order on the section 1102.5(b) retaliation claim. Because his claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy was derivative of his retaliation claim, the panel also reversed the grant of summary judgment on that claim.

 

Concerning plaintiff’s section 1102.5(c) claim, the panel agreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment after finding that plaintiff presented no evidence he had refused to engage in illegal activity. One of the elements of this claim requires a determination whether the plaintiff was retaliated against for refusing to participate in the identified activity. While plaintiff raised extensive concerns about the report, no evidence was adduced that plaintiff refused to comply with Caballero’s directives concerning the Conroe EA or otherwise refused to complete the EA. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for SpecPro on this claim.

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/20/21-15897.pdf

​

Little v. Com. on Teacher Credentialing (CA3 C092001 10/19/22) CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing | Investigations 

​

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Commission) and the Committee of Credentials of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Committee) appeal from a judgment and peremptory writ of prohibition directing them to discontinue certain investigative proceedings against present and former public school administrators Kathy Little, Simone Kovats, and Debra Sather (together, the administrators).  The Commission and Committee argue the trial court erred in ruling the administrators were excused from exhausting administrative remedies and misinterpreted Education Code section 44242.5, which defines the scope of the Committee’s jurisdiction.   Finding no error, we will affirm. 

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C092001.PDF

​

Max v. Doctors Med. Ctr, of Modesto (9th Cir. 21-16532 10/18/22) ADA | ACA | Section 504 | Unruh Act

 

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, in favor of Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc., in an action brought by two deaf plaintiffs who alleged that the hospital failed to afford them effective communication during a series of hospital stays, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

 

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal as moot of plaintiffs’ ADA claims for injunctive relief, which were resolved by a third plaintiff’s acceptance of an offer of judgment under which the district court issued an injunction against the hospital concerning its practices for communicating with deaf patients.

 

As to the Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claims, the panel held that the district court properly ruled that plaintiffs failed to show that they were denied program benefits on the basis of their disabilities because they did not show that the hospital failed in its affirmative obligation to provide the auxiliary aids necessary to afford them effective communication. The panel held that the district court did not err by failing to apply “primary consideration,” an ADA Title II rule, to the Section 504 claims, because there is no evidence that Section 504 contains an implicit requirement that a covered entity give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities when determining what types of auxiliary aids to use. The panel held that the district court properly evaluated the effectiveness of the hospital’s communication methods based on a day-by-day factual context and did not give undue weight to the presence or absence of a request for an accommodation by plaintiffs. In addition, the hospital did not deprive plaintiffs of effective communication each time it relied upon note-writing, rather than an American Sign Language interpreter. And the district court did not clearly err in finding that, despite occasional difficulties with a video remote interpreting system, there was effective communication between plaintiffs and the hospital.

 

The panel next addressed ACA Section 1557’s provision that “an individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under . . . [the Rehabilitation Act], be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance.” On September 8, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule applying ADA Title II’s effective communication standards, including the primary consideration rule, to Title III entities like the hospital. This rule did not become effective until after one plaintiff’s hospitalization. The panel declined to hold, through an application of Skidmore deference to the then-proposed rule, that the primary consideration rule governed the plaintiff’s ACA claim.

 

Because plaintiffs’ ACA claims were otherwise subject to the same analysis as their Section 504 claims, the panel held that the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of Section 1557. Because plaintiffs did not establish that the hospital engaged in any disability discrimination, their California Unruh Act claims also failed.

 

The panel addressed in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court’s judgment should be reversed because it was based on clearly erroneous factual findings.

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/18/21-16532.pdf

 

Allen v. Staples, Inc. (CA2/5 B311426, filed 9/20/22, ord pub. 10/18/22) Equal Pay Act

 

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff Joyce Allen’s complaint for wrongful termination and violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA; Lab. Code § 1197.5 (section 1197.5)) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.).  On appeal, plaintiff contends that reversal is warranted because her evidence raised triable issues on each of her claims.  We reverse the judgment and remand with instructions.

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B311426.PDF

​

CSV Hospitality Management v. Lucas (CA1/1 A163345, filed 9/20/22, pub. ord. 10/17/22) Workplace Violence Safety Act

 

Jermorio Lucas appeals from an order granting the request by petitioner CSV Hospitality Management LLC (CSV) for a restraining order under the Workplace Violence Safety Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.8).   Lucas argues that he was denied his statutory and confrontational rights by being disallowed to cross-examine CSV’s employee witness during the evidentiary hearing.  We agree, and reverse the order.

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163345.PDF

​

Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (US 21-984, oral argument 10/12/22) FLSA Overtime Pay

 

Question presented: Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. §541.601 remains subject to the detailed requirements of 29 C.F.R. §541.604 when determining whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements.

 

Oral Argument Transcript

Oral Argument Audio

Decision Below: Hewitt v. Helix Energy Group, 15 F.4th 289 (5th Cir. 2021)

 

McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc. (CA3 C093295M, filed 8/29/22, ord. pub. 9/13/22, mod. 10/12/22) Pivette Doctrine  

 

THE COURT:

            It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 29, 2022, and certified for publication on September 13, 2022, be modified as follows:

 

1.         On page 17, after the first partial paragraph that ends with “we apply similar logic to reject McCullar’s negligence claim here,” the following paragraphs and footnote are inserted.  This footnote shall be footnote 1, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes.

 

In a petition for rehearing, McCullar maintains that Tverberg II is analogous and Gonzalez is distinguishable for several reasons.  He first suggests Gonzalez is distinguishable because there, the hirer’s failure to act led to the creation of a workplace hazard; but here, the hirer’s affirmative act led to the creation of a workplace hazard.  But in our view, whether a hirer’s failure to act or affirmative act creates a workplace hazard, the rule is the same:  “Once an independent contractor becomes aware of a hazard on the premises, ‘the landowner/hirer delegates the responsibility of employee safety to the contractor’ and ‘a hirer has no duty to act to protect the employee when the contractor fails in that task . . . .’  [Citation.]”  (Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 44.)  The Gonzalez court, in describing this rule, never suggested a more searching analysis into the precise cause of the hazard—whether from a failure to act or an affirmative act—was necessary.  Nor did the Sandoval court when it said, “A hirer might be responsible for the presence of a hazard and even convey an expectation that the contractor perform its work without eliminating that hazard altogether, and yet leave the contractor ample freedom to accommodate that hazard effectively in whatever manner the contractor sees fit.”  (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 276.)  A contrary rule that premises liability on whether the hirer’s failure to act or affirmative act created the workplace hazard would add an inappropriate qualification to these holdings.

 

A contrary rule, moreover, would also undermine one of the principles underlying the Privette doctrine.  As the Sandoval court explained, the Privette doctrine is “rooted” in part on “society’s need for clear rules about who’s responsible for avoiding harms to workers when contractors are hired.”  (Sandoval, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 264.)  But “society’s need for clear rules about who’s responsible” would be undermined if it hinged responsibility on the precise cause of the hazard.  A contractor, for instance, should not second-guess its responsibility to address a workplace hazard simply because it believes the hirer’s affirmative act, rather than the hirer’s passive act, led to the hazard’s existence.  It should instead, once aware of the hazard, simply adhere to the same clear rule in both circumstances—take whatever precautions are necessary to protect its workers from the hazard.  This is, in our reading, the clear teaching of our Supreme Court’s decisions in Gonzalez and earlier cases.  (See Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 44 [“once the contractor becomes aware of a concealed hazard’s existence, it becomes the contractor’s responsibility to take whatever precautions are necessary to protect itself and its workers from the hazard”].) 

 

McCullar also contends Gonzalez is distinguishable for another reason.  He argues that when he asked SMC about the ice—asking, “ ‘[W]hat are we going to do about the ice situation?’ ”—he conveyed the message that “he could not safely perform the work of laying pipes . . . and that he had no way of clearing the ice.”  He then suggests the plaintiff in Gonzalez did not convey a similar type of message when he informed the landowner’s housekeeper “that the roof was in a dangerous condition and needed to be repaired” (Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 40), since he afterward continued to work on the roof without further raising the issue.  But in our view, McCullar attributes too much to his question about the ice.  Although McCullar fairly conveyed the message that he preferred SMC to deal with the ice, we find it unreasonable to say that he also conveyed the message that “he could not safely perform the work of laying pipes . . . and that he had no way of clearing the ice.”

 

There is no change in the judgment.  Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C093295M.PDF

​

Mobilize the Message LLC, et al. v. Rob Bonta (9th Cir. 21-55855 10/11/22) ABC Test | First Amendment

 

The panel affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction which sought to restrain the California Attorney General from applying California’s “ABC test,” codified in California Labor Code § 2775(b)(1) to classify plaintiffs’ doorknockers and signature gatherers as either employees or independent contractors.

 

For certain purposes, California classifies “a person providing labor or services for remuneration” as an employee unless the hiring entity satisfies the “ABC test” adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). Cal. Lab. Code § 2775(b)(1). Section 2775 and Dynamex do not apply to several occupations. E.g., id. § 2783. For workers in the exempt occupations, the multi-factor test of S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989), governs in determining whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Although Dynamex was initially limited to wage orders, with Borello applying outside that context, the California legislature codified the ABC test and expanded its applicability through the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 5 (AB 5) in 2019.

 

Plaintiff Mobilize the Message provides political campaigns with doorknockers and signature gatherers, which it purports to hire as independent contractors. Plaintiff Moving Oxnard Forward is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making the government of Oxnard, California, more efficient and transparent and in the past have hired signature gatherers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs claimed that the California law violates the First Amendment because it discriminates against speech based on its content by classifying their doorknockers and signature gatherers as employees or independent contractors under the ABC test while classifying direct sales salespersons, newspaper distributors, and newspaper carriers under Borello.

 

The panel accepted, for present purposes, plaintiffs’ assertion that application of the ABC test to their doorknockers and signature gatherers increased the likelihood that they will be classified as employees. The panel also accepted that classification of their doorknockers and signature gatherers as employees might impose greater costs on plaintiffs than if these individuals had been classified as independent contractors, and that as a result they might not retain as many doorknockers and signature gatherers. Such an indirect impact on speech, however, does not violate the First Amendment. Section 2783 does not target certain types of speech. Unless an occupational exemption exists, the ABC test applies across California’s economy. Thus, plaintiffs were not unfairly burdened by application of the ABC test to their doorknockers and signature gatherers.

 

The panel also rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that section 2783’s exemptions for direct sales salespersons, newspaper distributors, and newspaper carriers constituted content-based discrimination. Section 2783’s exemptions do not depend on the communicative content, if any, conveyed by the workers but rather on the workers’ occupations. Although determination of whether an individual is, for example, a direct sales salesperson might require some attention to the individual’s speech, the Supreme Court has rejected the view that any examination of speech or expression inherently triggers heightened First Amendment concern.

 

Because Plaintiffs had not established a colorable claim that their First Amendment rights had been infringed, or were threatened with infringement, they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.

 

Dissenting, Judge VanDyke stated he would reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction. The governmental burdens challenged here turned primarily on what is said, not labor distinctions unrelated to speech. Regardless of whether such content-based distinctions hide under the veneer of a labor classification, the First Amendment’s protections remain the same. Plaintiffs face cost-prohibitive expenses under AB 5 because of the content of the speech in which they engage.

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/11/21-55855.pdf

 

Johar v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CA1/4 A162563, filed 9/13/22, mod. 10/11/22) EDD | Voluntary Quit or Layoff

 

THE COURT

 

The petition for rehearing filed by appellant Reena Johar is denied, subject to the following modification of the opinion filed in this appeal on September 13, 2022:

 

1. On page 20, in the first full paragraph, in the fourth sentence which begins, “Under this procedure, . . .” insert “a” before the phrase “claim with the EDD” so that the sentence reads:

 

Under this procedure, within 10 days of mailed notice that a former employee has filed a claim with the EDD for unemployment, section 1327 requires the employer to submit “any facts then known that may affect the claimant’s eligibility for benefits, including, but not limited to, facts pertaining to eligibility under Section 1256.”

 

Pollak, P. J., Streeter, J., Brown, J.

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A162563M.PDF

​

2022 California Labor & Employment Bills Signed into Law by Governor (10/1/22)

​

BY BILL NUMBER

 

• AB 151 by the Committee on Budget – State employment: State Bargaining units: agreements: compensation and benefits

• AB 152 by the Committee on Budget – COVID-19 relief: supplemental paid sick leave.

• AB 156 by the Committee on Budget – State government (includes sheepherders, apprenticeships)

• AB 190 by the Committee on Budget – Higher education budget trailer bill (includes health insurance for part-time faculty)

• AB 257 by Assemblymember Holden (D-Pasadena) — Food facilities and employment

• AB 305 by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) –  Veteran services: notice

• AB 325 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) – Veterans: discharge upgrades

• AB 551 by Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona) – Disability retirement: COVID-19: presumption

• AB 655 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act

• AB 1041 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) – Employment: leave

• AB 1195 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Limited Eligibility and Appointment Program: lists

• AB 1467 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Student, faculty and staff safety: sexual assault and domestic violence procedures and protocols: sexual assault and domestic violence counselors

• AB 1601 by Assemblymember Dr. Akilah Weber (D-San Diego) – Employment protections: mass layoff, relocation, or termination of employees: call centers

• AB 1644 by Assemblymember Keith Flora (R-Ripon) – Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Fund: California Jobs Plan Act of 2021

• AB 1654 by Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) – Low-income housing: insurance tax: credits: farmworker housing

• AB 1661 by Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) –  Human trafficking: notice

• AB 1667 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – State Teachers’ Retirement System: administration

• AB 1715 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) – Space Force

• AB 1719 by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego) – Housing: Community College Faculty and Employee Housing Act of 2022

• AB 1722 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – Public employees’ retirement: safety members: industrial disability retirement

• AB 1726 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) – Address confidentiality program

• AB 1747 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Contractors: disciplinary action

• AB 1751 by Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim) – Workers’ compensation: COVID-19: critical workers

• AB 1758 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) – Board of Behavioral Sciences: marriage and family therapists: clinical social workers: professional clinical counselors: supervision of applicants for licensure via videoconferencing

• AB 1775 by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego) – Occupational safety: live events

• AB 1788 by Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo County) – Sex trafficking: hotels: actual knowledge or reckless disregard: civil penalty

• AB 1805 by Assemblymember Steven Choi (R-Irvine) – Unemployment: online information: Federal Unemployment Tax Act tax credit

• AB 1824 by the Committee on Public Employment and Retirement – Public employees’ retirement

• AB 1851 by Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) – Public works: prevailing wage: hauling

• AB 1854 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath (D-Encinitas) – Unemployment insurance: work sharing plans

• AB 1876 by Assemblymember Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) – Substitute teachers: emergency career substitute teaching permit: employment verification

• AB 1949 by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) – Employees: bereavement leave

• AB 2001 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – California Financing Law: remote work

• AB 2068 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) – Occupational safety and health: postings: spoken languages

• AB 2129 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) –  Employment Development Department: recession plan

• AB 2130 by Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo County) – Emergency medical services: human trafficking training

• AB 2148 by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) – Workers’ compensation: disability payments

• AB 2173 by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Laguna Beach) – Public contracts: payment

• AB 2183 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Monterey) -- Agricultural labor relations: elections

• AB 2188 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Fremont) – Discrimination in employment: use of cannabis

• AB 2204 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath (D-Encinitas) – Clean energy: Labor and Workforce Development Agency: Deputy Secretary for Climate

• AB 2206 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose) – Nonattainment basins: employee parking: parking cash-out program

• AB 2229 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-Arleta) – Peace officers: minimum standards: bias evaluation

• AB 2243 by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella) – Occupational safety and health standards: heat illness: wildfire smoke

• AB 2315 by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) – Community colleges: records: affirmed name and gender identification

• AB 2359 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) – Compton Community College District: personnel commission

• AB 2315 by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) – Community colleges: records: affirmed name and gender identification

• AB 2413 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) – Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: compensation

• AB 2443 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) – Judges’ Retirement System II: benefits

• AB 2463 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose) – Public works: exemption

• AB 2524 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: employee relations

• AB 2556 by Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) – Local public employee organizations

• AB 2662 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). Department of Fair Employment and Housing

• AB 2683 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Postsecondary education: sexual violence and harassment: training and resources

• AB 2735 by Assemblymember Adam Gray (D-Merced) – Peace officers: deputy sheriffs

• AB 2763 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: job order contracting

• AB 2766 by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) – Unfair Competition Law: enforcement powers: investigatory subpoena

• AB 2777 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) – Sexual assault: statute of limitations

• AB 2849 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) –  The Promote Ownership by Workers for Economic Recovery Act

• AB 2955 by the Committee on Labor and Employment – Worker classification: commercial fishing industry

• AB 2960 Judiciary omnibus (FEHA “person”)

• SB 114 Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. Employment: COVID-19: supplemental paid sick leave

• SB 130 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units 5, 6, 7, and 8: agreements

• SB 132 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units 16 and 18: agreements

• SB 189 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State Government – Name change of DFEH to Civil Rights Department (CRD), DFEH Director to Civil Rights Director, and FEHC to Civil Rights Council (CRC)

• SB 191 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Employment

• SB 196 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units: agreements

• SB 674 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Public Contracts: workforce development: covered public contracts

• SB 731 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Criminal records: relief

• SB 755 by Senator Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside) – Workforce development: training-related job placement: reporting

• SB 835  by Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) – Employee benefits: Legislature: employees and officers: benefits

• SB 850 by Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) – Special death benefits: additional percentages: children of members.

• SB 874 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – Classified school district and community college employees: probation: promotion

• SB 931 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Deterring union membership: violations

• SB 951 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Unemployment insurance: contribution rates: disability insurance: paid family leave: weekly benefit amount

• SB 954 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) – Public works: wages: electronic certified payroll records

• SB 957 by Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) – Public Employment Relations Board: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District: employee relations

• SB 960 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Public employment: peace officers: citizenship

• SB 984 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) – Military service: leave of absence: pay and benefits

• SB 1002 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) – Workers’ compensation: licensed clinical social workers

• SB 1044 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Employers: emergency condition: retaliation

• SB 1064 by Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) – Structural pest control: workers’ compensation insurance coverage

• SB 1089 by Senator Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) – Public employee retirement systems: prohibited investments: Turkey

• SB 1126 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – CalSavers: retirement savings

• SB 1127 by Senator Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Workers’ compensation: liability presumptions

• SB 1138 by Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) – Unemployment insurance: report: self-employed individuals

• SB 1162 by Senator Monique Limόn (D-Santa Barbara) – Employment: Salaries and Wages

• SB 1168 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – Public employees’ retirement: beneficiary payment

• SB 1200 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Enforcement of judgments: renewal and interest

• SB 1271 by Senator Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) – Contracts for the acquisition of goods or services: extension or renewal: legislative oversight

• SB 1334 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Meal and rest periods: hospital employees

• SB 1397 by Senator Andreas Borgeas (R-Fresno) – Teacher credentialing: emergency teaching permits

• SB 1402 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – Public employees’ retirement: armed forces: service credit

• SB 1477 by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Enforcement of judgments: wage garnishment

• SB 1487 by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) – Commission on Teacher Credentialing: survey: teacher resignations

​

BY SUBJECT MATTER

 

ALRB

 

• AB 2183 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Monterey) – Agricultural labor relations: elections

 

Cal/OSHA

 

• AB 1775 by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego) – Occupational safety: live events

• AB 2068 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) – Occupational safety and health: postings: spoken languages

• AB 2243 by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella) – Occupational safety and health standards: heat illness: wildfire smoke

•  

Climate

 

• AB 1644 by Assemblymember Keith Flora (R-Ripon) – Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Fund: California Jobs Plan Act of 2021

• AB 2204 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath (D-Encinitas) – Clean energy: Labor and Workforce Development Agency: Deputy Secretary for Climate

 

Confidentiality

 

• AB 1726 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) – Address confidentiality program

 

COVID-19

 

• AB 152 by the Committee on Budget – COVID-19 relief: supplemental paid sick leave

• AB 1751 by Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim) – Workers’ compensation: COVID-19: critical workers

• AB 2001 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – California Financing Law: remote work

• AB 2693 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton) – COVID-19: exposure

• SB 114 Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. Employment: COVID-19: supplemental paid sick leave

• SB 1044 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Employers: emergency condition: retaliation

 

Criminal Records

 

• SB 731 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Criminal records: relief

 

DFEH

 

• AB 2662 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). Department of Fair Employment and Housing)

• SB 189 Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. State Government – Name changes of DFEH to Civil Rights Department (CRD), DFEH Director to Civil Rights Director, and FEHC to Civil Rights Council (CRC)

 

EDD | Workforce Development

 

• AB 2129 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) –  Employment Development Department: recession plan

• AB 2849 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) –  The Promote Ownership by Workers for Economic Recovery Act

• SB 755 by Senator Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside) – Workforce development: training-related job placement: reporting

 

Educational Institutions

 

• AB 2315 by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) – Community colleges: records: affirmed name and gender identification

• AB 2413 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) – Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: compensation

• SB 1487 by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) – Commission on Teacher Credentialing: survey: teacher resignations

 

Enforcement of Judgment

 

• SB 1200 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Enforcement of judgments: renewal and interest

 

FEHA

 

• AB 2188 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Fremont) – Discrimination in employment: use of cannabis

• AB 2960 Judiciary omnibus (FEHA “person”)

 

Housing

 

• AB 1654 by Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) – Low-income housing: insurance tax: credits: farmworker housing

• AB 1719 by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego) – Housing: Community College Faculty and Employee Housing Act of 2022  

 

Human Trafficking

 

• AB 1661 by Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) –  Human trafficking: notice

• AB 1788 by Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo County) – Sex trafficking: hotels: actual knowledge or reckless disregard: civil penalty

• AB 2130 by Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo County) – Emergency medical services: human trafficking training

 

Law Enforcement

 

• AB 655 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act

• AB 2229 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-Arleta) – Peace officers: minimum standards: bias evaluation

 

Layoffs

 

• AB 1601 by Assemblymember Dr. Akilah Weber (D-San Diego) – Employment protections: mass layoff, relocation, or termination of employees: call centers

 

Leaves

 

• AB 1041 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) – Employment: leave

• AB 1949 by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) – Employees: bereavement leave

 

Licensing

 

• AB 1758 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) – Board of Behavioral Sciences: marriage and family therapists: clinical social workers: professional clinical counselors: supervision of applicants for licensure via videoconferencing

 

Parking

 

• AB 2206 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose) – Nonattainment basins: employee parking: parking cash-out program

 

Pay Transparency

 

• SB 1162 by Senator Monique Limόn (D-Santa Barbara) – Employment: Salaries and Wages

 

Public Contracts

 

• AB 1747 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Contractors: disciplinary action

• AB 2173 by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Laguna Beach) – Public contracts: payment

• AB 2763 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: job order contracting

• SB 674 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Public Contracts: workforce development: covered public contracts

 

Public Employment

 

• AB 151 by the Committee on Budget – State employment: State Bargaining units: agreements: compensation and benefits

• AB 156 by the Committee on Budget – State government (includes sheepherders, apprenticeships)

• AB 190 by the Committee on Budget – Higher education budget trailer bill (includes health insurance for part-time faculty)

• AB 1195 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Limited Eligibility and Appointment Program: lists

• AB 1876 by Assemblymember Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) – Substitute teachers: emergency career substitute teaching permit: employment verification

• AB 2359 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) – Compton Community College District: personnel commission

• AB 2524 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: employee relations

• AB 2556 by Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) – Local public employee organizations

• AB 2735 by Assemblymember Adam Gray (D-Merced) – Peace officers: deputy sheriffs

• SB 130 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units 5, 6, 7, and 8: agreements

• SB 132 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units 16 and 18: agreements

• SB 191 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Employment

• SB 196 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employment: State Bargaining Units: agreements

• SB 835  by Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) – Employee benefits: Legislature: employees and officers: benefits

• SB 850 by Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) – Special death benefits: additional percentages: children of members.

• SB 874 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – Classified school district and community college employees: probation: promotion

• SB 931 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Deterring union membership: violations

• SB 957 by Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) – Public Employment Relations Board: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District: employee relations

• SB 960 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Public employment: peace officers: citizenship

 

Public Works

 

• AB 2463 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose) – Public works: exemption

• SB 954 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) – Public works: wages: electronic certified payroll records

 

Retirement

 

• AB 551 by Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona) – Disability retirement: COVID-19: presumption

• AB 1667 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – State Teachers’ Retirement System: administration

• AB 1722 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – Public employees’ retirement: safety members: industrial disability retirement

• AB 1824 by the Committee on Public Employment and Retirement – Public employees’ retirement

• AB 1971 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – County Employees Retirement Law of 1937

• AB 2443 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) – Judges’ Retirement System II: benefits

• SB 868 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – State teachers’ retirement: supplemental benefits

• SB 1089 by Senator Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) – Public employee retirement systems: prohibited investments: Turkey

• SB 1126 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – CalSavers: retirement savings

• SB 1168 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – Public employees’ retirement: beneficiary payment

• SB 1402 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – Public employees’ retirement: armed forces: service credit

 

Sexual Assault/Harassment

 

• AB 1467 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Student, faculty and staff safety: sexual assault and domestic violence procedures and protocols: sexual assault and domestic violence counselors

• AB 2955 by the Committee on Labor and Employment – Worker classification: commercial fishing industry

 

Teachers

 

• SB 1397 by Senator Andreas Borgeas (R-Fresno) – Teacher credentialing: emergency teaching permits

 

Training

 

• AB 2683 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Postsecondary education: sexual violence and harassment: training and resources

 

Unemployment Insurance

 

• AB 1805 by Assemblymember Steven Choi (R-Irvine) – Unemployment: online information: Federal Unemployment Tax Act tax credit

• AB 1854 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath (D-Encinitas) – Unemployment insurance: work sharing plans

• SB 951 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Unemployment insurance: contribution rates: disability insurance: paid family leave: weekly benefit amount

• SB 1138 by Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) – Unemployment insurance: report: self-employed individuals

 

Unfair Competition

 

• AB 2766 by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) – Unfair Competition Law: enforcement powers: investigatory subpoena

 

Veterans

 

• AB 305 by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) –  Veteran services: notice

• AB 325 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) – Veterans: discharge upgrades

• AB 1715 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) – Space Force

• SB 984 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) – Military service: leave of absence: pay and benefits

 

Wage and Hour

 

• AB 257 by Assemblymember Holden (D-Pasadena) — Food facilities and employment

• AB 1851 by Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) – Public works: prevailing wage: hauling

• AB 2955 by the Committee on Labor and Employment – Worker classification: commercial fishing industry

• SB 1334 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Meal and rest periods: hospital employees

 

Wage Garnishment

 

• SB 1477 by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Enforcement of judgments: wage garnishment

 

Workers’ Compensation

 

• AB 2148 by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) – Workers’ compensation: disability payments

• SB 1002 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) – Workers’ compensation: licensed clinical social workers

• SB 1064 by Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) – Structural pest control: workers’ compensation insurance coverage

• SB 1127 by Senator Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Workers’ compensation: liability presumptions

​